• 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..

Chud_Jenny said:
youtube.com

Intel lied about Raptor Lake Failures Today

Intel lied about oxidation, and their Raptor Lake claims don’t add up...#shorts #short #intel #oxidation #instability MAJOR SPONSORS:Get BIG DEALS if you sup...
youtube.com youtube.com
Click to expand...

MLID...

Also a good idea for anyone putting out statements, videos, etc. on this to put lied in alleged form, unless they have proof, so Intel can't sue for slander/libel.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
MILD...

Also a good idea for anyone putting out statements, videos, etc. on this to put lied in alleged form, unless they have proof, so Intel can't sue for slander.
Click to expand...
He's got quiet a few sources feeding him info from both AMD and Bintel. Videocardz run with half the stuff he comes out with. Just more fuel for the fire really.
 
So those of us who overclocked our cpu's and locked the voltages to say around 1.35v volts have saved out CPUS from death haha...
I knew seeing nearly 1.5v at stock wasn't right at the start and didn't sit well with me so I'm glad I stopped that from the start.
 
Last edited:
Chud_Jenny said:
He's got quiet a few sources feeding him info from both AMD and Bintel. Videocardz run with half the stuff he comes out with. Just more fuel for the fire really.
Click to expand...

His sources are dubious at best - he got played twice by people making up BS intentionally to see if he'd run with it. Over the years the stuff he has come out with has been completely random if it was right or not and rarely has he come out with any information which absolutely would have had to be insider knowledge.
 
Locky said:
So those of us who overclocked our cpu's and locked the voltages to say around 1.35v volts have saved out CPUS from death haha...
I knew seeing nearly 1.5v at stock wasn't right at the start and didn't sit well with me so I'm glad I stopped that from the start.
Click to expand...

If my understanding is correct it is more complicated than that - the CPU would continue to run at voltages and frequencies outside of the envelope for the current thermal situation (and for long duration) and that doesn't mean in situations where the CPU is hot necessarily. Compounded probably by some overly optimistic binning of parts and the optimisations of some motherboards making the situation worse meaning in some cases that higher than intended voltage was considerably above what the silicon is designed for, even if only for brief periods.

Though reigning in the voltage will likely have at least mitigated the problem if not prevented it.

IMO Intel would probably have to introduce new SKUs with stricter binning like 100-200MHz lower clocks, ~200mV lower voltage target, with supply of the higher end parts at current specs much reduced to fully fix this problem, and that assumes there aren't other issues like manufacturing defects or an inherent design flaw/weakness.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Yes its MLID but lets be honest here is saying what a lot of are thinking.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that MLID is questioning others for not giving all the infomation and being vague when this is what he does for a living so when he leaks information and it doesnt add up is that also an admission then that he's lying.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Feels like we aren't getting the whole picture.
Click to expand...
By design, I think, I doubt we'll ever know the true scale of the problem and how many CPUs sit in each camp. Intel are claiming very few of their CPUs fall into the manufacturing fault category and most are just the result of a bug in an algorithm, which seems convenient, because as THG said, this is the least serious outcome for them and the least reputationally damaging.

Chud_Jenny said:
He's got quiet a few sources feeding him info from both AMD and Bintel. Videocardz run with half the stuff he comes out with. Just more fuel for the fire really.
Click to expand...
I doubt any of his sources would back him up if he got sued, they'd all go quiet faster than a hungry kid in a sweet shop that realises they aren't free.
 
Rroff said:
If my understanding is correct it is more complicated than that - the CPU would continue to run at voltages and frequencies outside of the envelope for the current thermal situation (and for long duration) and that doesn't mean in situations where the CPU is hot necessarily. Compounded probably by some overly optimistic binning of parts and the optimisations of some motherboards making the situation worse meaning in some cases that higher than intended voltage was considerably above what the silicon is designed for, even if only for brief periods.

Though reigning in the voltage will likely have at least mitigated the problem if not prevented it.

IMO Intel would probably have to introduce new SKUs with stricter binning like 100-200MHz lower clocks, ~200mV lower voltage target, with supply of the higher end parts at current specs much reduced to fully fix this problem, and that assumes there aren't other issues like manufacturing defects or an inherent design flaw/weakness.
Click to expand...

For me, I run an offset of -0.13500 on my 14900k, PL1 & PL2 both 253W, ICCMax 400A.

I ran a test gaming in the Finals for around an hour, from memory my CPU averaged about 1.35V, max didn't see to go any higher either. When I first got my CPU I did a couple of benchmarks with unrestricted settings and I saw over 1.5V. That's when I decided to implement all of the intel default settings with the under-volt. Hopefully being prudent it will prevent premature CPU death! As it stands I get 95% of the performance versus unrestricted settings at much lower temperatures, voltage and power consumption.

For what it's worth, intel's official statement on this (updated yesterday 22/07) is:

Based on extensive analysis of Intel Core 13th/14th Gen desktop processors returned to us due to instability issues, we have determined that elevated operating voltage is causing instability issues in some 13th/14th Gen desktop processors. Our analysis of returned processors confirms that the elevated operating voltage is stemming from a microcode algorithm resulting in incorrect voltage requests to the processor.

Intel is delivering a microcode patch which addresses the root cause of exposure to elevated voltages. We are continuing validation to ensure that scenarios of instability reported to Intel regarding its Core 13th/14th Gen desktop processors are addressed. Intel is currently targeting mid-August for patch release to partners following full validation.

Intel is committed to making this right with our customers, and we continue asking any customers currently experiencing instability issues on their Intel Core 13th/14th Gen desktop processors reach out to Intel Customer Support for further assistance.

On the 'Manufacturing' issue reports. Intel have addressed this one also:

"...We can confirm that the via Oxidation manufacturing issue affected some early Intel Core 13th Gen desktop processors. However, the issue was root caused and addressed with manufacturing improvements and screens in 2023. We have also looked at it from the instability reports on Intel Core 13th Gen desktop processors and the analysis to-date has determined that only a small number of instability reports can be connected to the manufacturing issue".
 
Last edited:
spooks said:
For me, I run an offset of -0.13500 on my 14900k, PL1 & PL2 both 253W, ICCMax 400A.

I ran a test gaming in the Finals for around an hour, from memory my CPU averaged about 1.35V, max didn't see to go any higher either. When I first got my CPU I did a couple of benchmarks with unrestricted settings and I saw over 1.5V. That's when I decided to implement all of the intel default settings with the under-volt. Hopefully being prudent it will prevent premature CPU death! As it stands I get 95% of the performance versus unrestricted settings at much lower temperatures, voltage and power consumption.
Click to expand...

Be interesting if we ever get the real story but the voltages I've seen don't sit well with my understanding of the likely limits of the node used.

My 14700K normally doesn't go above 1.42 very occasionally a couple of cores will hit 1.43, assuming the displayed voltage is correct. Most of the time sits below 1.4. So hoping mine will be OK.
 
Rroff said:
Be interesting if we ever get the real story but the voltages I've seen don't sit well with my understanding of the likely limits of the node used.

My 14700K normally doesn't go above 1.42 very occasionally a couple of cores will hit 1.43, assuming the displayed voltage is correct. Most of the time sits below 1.4. So hoping mine will be OK.
Click to expand...
Indeed, fingers crossed!

When I built this PC originally (last year) it was an i7 13700k. I'd been out of PC's for years, last major one I did prior to that was 2014 with a few upgrades in between. I started to get issues with that 13700k pretty soon after building it (within a couple of months). I ended up having to take it back to the retailer where I sat in their returns department playing games until I could replicate the issue :D. In the end they replaced the CPU with another 13700k which I ran using all the default BIOS settings (I just assumed these were fine as they were back in 2014). I upgraded the 13700k to this CPU because I will be upgrading my son's PC and figured he could have my old one. I've not had a spot of bother with that 13700K but I will definitely be using the newest BIOS and hopefully it remains fine!

I have another PC with a 14600K in it as well... like buses with me, no computers and then 3! All running raptor lake, lol!
 
Tetras said:
By design, I think, I doubt we'll ever know the true scale of the problem and how many CPUs sit in each camp. Intel are claiming very few of their CPUs fall into the manufacturing fault category and most are just the result of a bug in an algorithm, which seems convenient, because as THG said, this is the least serious outcome for them and the least reputationally damaging.


I doubt any of his sources would back him up if he got sued, they'd all go quiet faster than a hungry kid in a sweet shop that realises they aren't free.
Click to expand...
To this day, we don't even know how extensive Nvidia Bumbgate was. A few parts from then are still - most be more than thermal stress as a pretty low power nForce chipset died on me and it was never hot (and not on the "official" lst of affected parts).

If you are not enough and can spin the narrative there is no need to come clean.

As for being economical with them truth, some companies are big enough to start legals against someone even if caught red handed and just drag it out.
 
ive undervolted my 14770k slightly by 0.055, limited pl1 and 2 to 253w and set iccmax to 307a , it still thermal throttled on some cores and tripped the ring and core power limit, set the iccmax to 250 and its ok now. no random core trying to turbo itself to death. think my motherboard needs the new microcode update asap.

forgot to say that hwinfo said the core was thermal throttling but the max cpu temp didnt go above 83c
 
Last edited:
Glanza said:
Click to expand...

I'm of a similar opinion when it comes to the voltages until more information comes to light, these CPUs are running peaks of double the Intel "7" 10nm characterised voltage which is also similar for other comparable nodes (it is usual for products to be running like 30-40% above that).
 
I've been running mine at 5.8 all core with about 1.35v max since day one with no power constraints (I do have uber good cooling though) and its as solid as ever. I played the first descendant (which is heavy on the CPU) for nearly 5 hours straight the other and not a zero hiccup.
I cant remember the last time my PC crashed tbh..
 
Rroff said:
The 14700 chips currently start at just under £350 from a reputable retailer, the 7950X cheapest from somewhere reputable is £470, the X3D around £550.
Click to expand...

Wow. Just realised how much the 7950X3D has gone up since I bought it - I paid £469.99 from OcUK in June, it's now on offer at £569.99.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom