Honestly at this point you should take it up with Intel because your theory could save them a fortune. Meanwhile back on planet earth the facts are well established over these issue. Issues nearly ended Intel, cost its CEO his position and seen payments to firms to move to AMD.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel has a Pretty Big Problem..
- Thread starter Purgatory
- Start date
Honestly at this point you should take it up with Intel because your theory could save them a fortune. Meanwhile back on planet earth the facts are well established over these issue. Issues nearly ended Intel, cost its CEO his position and seen payments to firms to move to AMD.
Nope, as has previously been established in these threads those issues started long before these 13th and 14th gen issues and they aren't remotely of a scale, even if as bad as you claim, to cause Intel's woes of late a lot of which is due to failures of its foundry businesses and strategic missteps in mobile and AI segments.
The mobile chips are also starting to fail in same way. This issue will get worse over time for Intel. Nvidia might have cough up another 5 billion.
There has never been any difference between the desktop and mobile parts using the same architecture in this way - there have been a small number of 13900HX, etc. failing consistent with the desktop parts.
You must not have been fallowing the failures at all. The mobile failure rate was around 2% 16ish moths ago and it’s around 4% now, which goes against every known MTFB profile. Right now that figure should be close to zero as all the early failures should have happened, it to mention laptops being complete OEM systems, that figure is almost certainly skewed.
Yet if we went with your version they'd be 50+% failures - as a lot of the mobile parts like the 13900HX, etc. are basically desktop chips. So finally we get to the reality of around 3% failures.
More projection.
That’s what the available data sets showed at the time. Now that figure looks more like 16-30% failure rate. However, as I said that figure will and is increasing over time.
14900k Failures: ~1% in standard consumer desktops up to 50% in heavy-duty production environments. For a gamer the 14900k is fine. The failure rate is the same as something like a 9800X3D. AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is very low—typically under 1%.
Stating failure rate for the 14900k not to be your gaming cpu is basically wrong.
Example:
"Jigger: Intel are **** and all the 13 and 14 series have either blown up or will blow up."
This is completely untrue. Gaming loads are basically very low. It's heavy loads, voltage and time. Gamers that overclocked their 14900k CPUs correctly never had CPUs dying or degrading. Asrock motherboards were killing 9800x3D cpus with higher voltages. No one was stating there were issues with the 9800X3D. Like the 9800X3D, running the 14900k at stock specs fixed the issue. No degrading/dying. The 9800X3D was blowing up on boards like Asrock before they fixed the voltages. Not degrading like the 14900k.
The main issue with the 14900k is second hand. You don't know what was done to the CPU.
Stating failure rate for the 14900k not to be your gaming cpu is basically wrong.
Example:
"Jigger: Intel are **** and all the 13 and 14 series have either blown up or will blow up."
This is completely untrue. Gaming loads are basically very low. It's heavy loads, voltage and time. Gamers that overclocked their 14900k CPUs correctly never had CPUs dying or degrading. Asrock motherboards were killing 9800x3D cpus with higher voltages. No one was stating there were issues with the 9800X3D. Like the 9800X3D, running the 14900k at stock specs fixed the issue. No degrading/dying. The 9800X3D was blowing up on boards like Asrock before they fixed the voltages. Not degrading like the 14900k.
The main issue with the 14900k is second hand. You don't know what was done to the CPU.
These chips have numerous main issues, that’s what makes them special. And no, Intel didn’t fix anything because one of the issues is at the molecular level.
The Core Problem
Out of the box, motherboards were designed to ignore Intel's recommended power limits, pushing unlimited wattage and voltage to the processor. This caused the CPU to physically degrade over time. While Intel released microcode patches (like 0x129) to limit excessive voltage requests, they cannot reverse physical damage already done to the chip.
This happened to the 9800X3D as well, at first reports with Asrock motherboards.
This is all the information anyone knows about the issue. Another argument would be speculation. While early extreme reports suggested up to a 50% failure rate in heavy production environments, system integrators like Puget Systems reported real-world failure rates of about 2%. The instability primarily stems from permanent silicon degradation, meaning damaged chips cannot be fully repaired by software fixes.
This is the 9800X3D https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2024/11/RYZEN-9800X3D-BURN-2000x1040.jpg
Out of the box, motherboards were designed to ignore Intel's recommended power limits, pushing unlimited wattage and voltage to the processor. This caused the CPU to physically degrade over time. While Intel released microcode patches (like 0x129) to limit excessive voltage requests, they cannot reverse physical damage already done to the chip.
This happened to the 9800X3D as well, at first reports with Asrock motherboards.
This is all the information anyone knows about the issue. Another argument would be speculation. While early extreme reports suggested up to a 50% failure rate in heavy production environments, system integrators like Puget Systems reported real-world failure rates of about 2%. The instability primarily stems from permanent silicon degradation, meaning damaged chips cannot be fully repaired by software fixes.
This is the 9800X3D https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2024/11/RYZEN-9800X3D-BURN-2000x1040.jpg
14900 SKUs at retail have an approx. 7% long term return rate, it briefly peaked around 14% but the numbers are polluted by people returning them in numbers trying to get a "golden" overclocker and people panic returning CPUs when the news first hit the media about degradation making it difficult to discern actual failure rates due to these issues. The rest of the 14th gen line up have around 1% return rates with the 14700K a little higher at 1-2%. One of my acquaintances in the game dev world was recently commenting that they had 3 studios kitted out identically with 13900 and 14900 setups and the first one had around 50% failure rates and interestingly a high failure rate in the replacement CPUs direct from Intel with some dying in as little as 1-3 months but the other 2 studios haven't had a single failure in over 3 years despite all the sites basically doing the same thing. There is no evidence of widespread high failure rates in industrial use but there are some sporadic reports, mostly unsubstantiated, of higher failure rates in industrial settings but it is not something seen across the industry broadly despite the insistence of some. (I'm not really sure what to make of this as personally I think Level1Tech got used by some disgruntled ex-Intel employees but at the same time I am seeing isolated reports of similar happening - enough from people I know to be genuine to know there is at least something there).
The 9800X3D failures do not seem to be strictly a motherboard issue though for some reason ASRock boards factor primarily in it, the same type of failures are seen though at a much lower rate on other boards and there was recently a spike in failures on Asus boards for some reason - but more affecting the 9950 SKUs than the 9800X3D. Despite the fixes ASRock put into place it is still happening. Weirdly it seems sporadic - maybe partly due to people changing their usage habits with the seasons i.e. spending more time indoors on their computers in the winter. There was a relatively big spike of 9000 series failures over the end of 2025 and first couple of months of this year but it seems to have settled down again now.
This was an exacerbating factor - the main degradation issue is the vmin shift issue which causes the CPUs to hold inappropriate voltage levels in changing thermal and turbo states, all Raptor Lake CPUs have this problem but for the vast majority it doesn't push them outside of the nominal safe window, but for a few it does. This is actually a knock on problem from an earlier issue where a small percentage of Raptor Lake CPUs were falling outside of spec and had insufficient voltage to be stable out the box, unfortunately there is no way at microcode level to discern which need it bumped and which don't so Intel basically just bumped all CPUs up slightly with the result of pushing a small number the other way resulting in them then holding damaging voltage levels in transition states causing eventual failure hastened by high power limits.
Last edited:
I remember these reasons being given:
Motherboard Power Profiles: Default motherboard settings often ignored Intel's official power specifications, instead removing all limits and allowing the 14900K to draw massive amounts of power (300W+) and hit thermal limits. This accelerated the degradation.
Excessive Voltage (Microcode Bug): A bug in the processor's microcode requested operating voltages that were too high, causing the processor to request elevated VID voltages during periods of low load or idle. This stressed the silicon and accelerated degradation. https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?threads/new-to-the-raptor-lake-story-start-here.400803/ Intel’s Core i9-14900K instability issues are caused by Vmin Shift Instability, where an algorithm in the processor’s microcode requested elevated voltages at unsafe levels. Intel has released a mandatory microcode fix (versions 0x129 and 0x12B) to cap these voltages.
Degrading to the internal clock tree circuit. Cause by high voltages.
Via Oxidation: A manufacturing defect where "vias" (microscopic copper pathways connecting different layers of the CPU) in early batches were exposed to oxidation during fabrication, leading to physical corrosion and eventual chip failure.
Intel default BIOS settings are widely reported to have fixed the issue. Vmin Shift Instability was reported fixed in a microcode update. Only early batches were affected by the Via Oxidation issue. Second hand 14900k's could be degraded but fully works with Intels default bios settings. Would be fun getting one of them.
Motherboard Power Profiles: Default motherboard settings often ignored Intel's official power specifications, instead removing all limits and allowing the 14900K to draw massive amounts of power (300W+) and hit thermal limits. This accelerated the degradation.
Excessive Voltage (Microcode Bug): A bug in the processor's microcode requested operating voltages that were too high, causing the processor to request elevated VID voltages during periods of low load or idle. This stressed the silicon and accelerated degradation. https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?threads/new-to-the-raptor-lake-story-start-here.400803/ Intel’s Core i9-14900K instability issues are caused by Vmin Shift Instability, where an algorithm in the processor’s microcode requested elevated voltages at unsafe levels. Intel has released a mandatory microcode fix (versions 0x129 and 0x12B) to cap these voltages.
Via Oxidation: A manufacturing defect where "vias" (microscopic copper pathways connecting different layers of the CPU) in early batches were exposed to oxidation during fabrication, leading to physical corrosion and eventual chip failure.
Intel default BIOS settings are widely reported to have fixed the issue. Vmin Shift Instability was reported fixed in a microcode update. Only early batches were affected by the Via Oxidation issue. Second hand 14900k's could be degraded but fully works with Intels default bios settings. Would be fun getting one of them.
Last edited:
No one is saying the microcode update can fix the small number of mostly 13900Ks affected by the via oxidation issue and it is clearly not an issue affecting the wider Raptor Lake line up.
Last edited:
Yet that would need a detailed troubleshoot.