• 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..

pete910 said:
They may be, but to be frank am not sure if I would trust them until they'd been out a year or so just to be sure for me to go Intel again.
Click to expand...

I dunno for all the drama etc they still have some of the best engineers on the planet so you can never write them off... they will come back strong once they get their house in order... Old Pat has some stuff to answer for for sure.
 
Last edited:
Vince said:
That's the problem I recon you should!! I can't think of many applications these days where rocking Intel is kinda required. I mean there are likely some obscure ones out there like some old compilers etc but your missing out my man. Think of all the cool stuff you could play with like 3d v-cache and, and, stuff....

Also what about the msi claw... or you not that desperate yet?
Click to expand...

I do a lot of stuff where Intel is still the better option (lots of old game modding tools were written for Intel CPUs and even in this day and age it can be a fair time difference with some operations). It is also the better balance of performance for me currently - the 7800X3D has the gaming performance but falls down massively in some stuff I use the system for while the 7950 chips are quite a bit more money without pulling that much away from the 14700K, at least in the stuff I do - some applications they do have a bigger advantage.

The MSI Claw doesn't seem that great - but the Legion Go has some neat and useful features for me with the ability to detach the controllers and use it with the flip stand and a good size screen/resolution, etc.
 
Rroff said:
I do a lot of stuff where Intel is still the better option (lots of old game modding tools were written for Intel CPUs and even in this day and age it can be a fair time difference with some operations). It is also the better balance of performance for me currently - the 7800X3D has the gaming performance but falls down massively in some stuff I use the system for while the 7950 chips are quite a bit more money without pulling that much away from the 14700K, at least in the stuff I do - some applications they do have a bigger advantage.

The MSI Claw doesn't seem that great - but the Legion Go has some neat and useful features for me with the ability to detach the controllers and use it with the flip stand and a good size screen/resolution, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think the claw reviewed well anywhere. This current iteration of Intel low power silicon just can't seem to get close to chips like the z1... that z1 is absurdly good for what it is when you look at it objectively... utterly bonkers.
 
Vince said:
I don't think the claw reviewed well anywhere. This current iteration of Intel low power silicon just can't seem to get close to chips like the z1... that z1 is absurdly good for what it is when you look at it objectively... utterly bonkers.
Click to expand...

Bit off topic now but aside from the idle/low power utilisation (no exaggeration but my 14700K can be tuned for less power use under idle states) the CPU is ridiculous for what it is - easily hanging it with the 5000 series desktop parts at 30-35 watt TDP and even at 5 watt TDP keeps up with, or beats, my old Xeon system and so far the mix of 4x Zen 4 and 4x Zen4c cores doesn't seem to cause any issues like is sometimes seen with E cores or some AMD CPUs with mixed CCDs.
 
Rroff said:
Bit off topic now but aside from the idle/low power utilisation (no exaggeration but my 14700K can be tuned for less power use under idle states) the CPU is ridiculous for what it is - easily hanging it with the 5000 series desktop parts at 30-35 watt TDP and even at 5 watt TDP keeps up with, or beats, my old Xeon system and so far the mix of 4x Zen 4 and 4x Zen4c cores doesn't seem to cause any issues like is sometimes seen with E cores or some AMD CPUs with mixed CCDs.
Click to expand...

Yea that's my bad that is, I've been throughly impressed with the z1 more of that please from both sides... should probably get back onto this Intel issue. Sorry for the old thread derail people!! As you were :cry:
 
Last edited:
MyBrainz said:
videocardz.com

Intel confirms no recall for Raptor Lake CPUs, microcode won't fix affected units - VideoCardz.com

Intel finally provides a clearer overview of Raptor Lake instability issues No recall, no fix for affected CPUs, investigation still ongoing. Intel has responded to press inquiries about the instability issues affecting 13th and 14th Gen Core processors. Questions from The Verge to Intel were...
videocardz.com videocardz.com
Click to expand...


This is hilarious

* Intel says microcode won't fix your instability

* Intel says the damage in your cpu can't be fixed

* Intel says no recall

All in the same statement
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
This is hilarious

* Intel says microcode won't fix your instability

* Intel says the damage in your cpu can't be fixed

* Intel says no recall
Click to expand...
Its insane to say these things.. great way to make people want to switch or even just look at the Ryzen options especially with the upcoming Zen 5 releases!

Intels next chip should be called YOLO! :D
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
This will be thanks to the recent media reports of the issue: a major French retailer has told media it's very quickly seen a massive spike in RMA's for 13th and 14th gen, depending on model return rates have jumped by up to 400%

wccftech.com

Major European Retailers Are Witnessing "Four Times" Higher Return Rates With Intel's 14th Gen & 13th Gen CPUs

Intel's 14th & 13th Gen CPU instability issues have bothered retailers massively, as a report shows that return rates have grown a lot.
wccftech.com wccftech.com
Click to expand...
Yep, the retailer are going to be the ones getting shafted. Weeks of work for no money.
 
Grim5 said:
This is hilarious

* Intel says microcode won't fix your instability
Click to expand...
If the CPU is already degraded and crashing then it won't fix the instability.
Grim5 said:
* Intel says the damage in your cpu can't be fixed
Click to expand...
If it's degraded or got the oxidation issue then it cannot be fixed.
Grim5 said:
* Intel says no recall
Click to expand...
The statment says for people having problems to contact them though the least they could do is increase the warranty and not fight people to get their CPU's RMA'ed.
Grim5 said:
All in the same statement
Click to expand...
...
 
Ok so with my processor being one of the affected units (pretty sure now) I have some questions

Please correct me if I'm wrong here

Currently my 13900k is being held at 253W max boost and 307A ICC max on intels maximum specs in performance mode.
now ignoring the fact that mine is currently underclocked to try and aid stability (is it fully relevant?) It is currently headbutting the current throttling limit even during idle in windows. upon applying a stress test it will then slam into the power limit throttling as soon as the load is applied meaning that the 56 seconds of boost is less than a second before it drops the clocks back below 5ghz for any sustained load with both power limit throttling and current limit throttling in XTU staying active the entire time. (Thermal throttling is nowhere near and is reporting under 80 degrees after 2 hours of stress testing)

My question is this. If I get a new processor which has not suffered the same degradation will it even be able to achieve the processor speeds specified by intel with these power limits? Or is it effectively kneecapped and unable to even achieve it's standard specs? If so would that not be a case where it can be returned as not being fit for purpose?

Say if you bought a Bugatti Chiron as it was the fastest production car and then after a year you had to get a replacement engine because the first one failed
You get a replacement only to be told that it's limited to 800bhp and it's not capable of more without damage. All of a sudden it's slower than it's competitors that you would have chosen if you'd known at the time of purchase.

Obviously that still leaves me in a bit of a bind with a very expensive motherboard and ramm that potentially is useless if the relevant 14th gen chips are doing exactly the same thing. :mad:

Am I being unreasonable?
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
Finally a motherboard that won't kill the 14900k and all they had to do was sacrifice 50% performance. Intel needs to lower its prices it has become the budget brand for budget CPU performance
Click to expand...
For all the reviewers thinking of what to do for upcoming reviews:
1. Use the old scores for Intel.
2. Use the old scores for Intel but put a big disclaimer up.
3. Re-test Intel at some manner of Intel default settings.
4. Re-test Intel using a £50 motherboard which can only run at safer speeds.

First one is easiest, won't offend Intel PR. Pretty much untenable after the last week.

Second option seemed to be what GN were hinting at.

Third option is only possible if Intel ever properly define a new baseline setting, i.e. too late for upcoming CPU reviews.

The fourth option is now on the table. A bunch of reviewers could state that as their intention unless Intel sort out their baseline in time., or they will not even bother to graph Intel CPUs in their reviews. That should hurry Intel up.
 
Last edited:
Gorbash12346 said:
My question is this. If I get a new processor which has not suffered the same degradation will it even be able to achieve the processor speeds specified by intel with these power limits? Or is it effectively kneecapped and unable to even achieve it's standard specs? If so would that not be a case where it can be returned as not being fit for purpose?
Click to expand...
It will not sustain maximum boost at 253 watts in any fully multithreaded load unless you get a pretty awesome sample, but Intel always use "up to" when describing their boost clocks and they note that the turbo is constrained by thermal and power limits. Reviewers using unlimited power was a specification that Intel allowed them to use, but it was never strictly within specification (though an infinite boost duration has been permitted since 12th gen). In other words, a throttling CPU isn't grounds to return it.

If the new algorithm will allow boards to use unlimited power again without degradation, I don't know. Buildzoid put a new video recently about an Intel microcode update, but I haven't watched it and I'm not sure if it is equivalent to the August update.

www.youtube.com

Probing the intel 0x125 Microcode update with an oscilloscope

TL;DW: the 0x125 micro code runs about 50mv less Vcore for 6GHz boost with my CPU. So instead of 1.5V it runs 1.45V. However 8T cinebench still gets all the...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Grim5 said:
This is hilarious

* Intel says microcode won't fix your instability

* Intel says the damage in your cpu can't be fixed

* Intel says no recall

All in the same statement
Click to expand...

Yeah that is nuts...

And if you read on you're only entitled to an RMA "if you have an affected CPU" That implies not all CPU's are affected, but have also not provided any guidance on which CPU's are affected, so how is anyone supposed to know they have a ticking time bomb? Or are Intel just hoping that a lot of people wont notice at least until after the warranty run's out if at all.

I hope Steve Burke makes a point like that because it ______ maters, this is shady AF.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Or are Intel just hoping that a lot of people wont notice at least until after the warranty run's out if at all.
Click to expand...
der8auer made a similar point in his video, that usually you'd expect a CPU (at least, if it has been treated reasonably well and you've never fiddled with or even updated the BIOS in any way since you got it) to last for 10+ years and it is not unusual on this forum to see upgraders with Intel CPUs that are anywhere from 10 - 15 years old (like a 3770K is 12 years old).

Plus, even if you planned to get rid after a more modest 3-5 years, something like an i7 going by past history (e.g. 8700K) would have held onto the value pretty well, but as they get older, these CPUs are going to get harder and harder to shift.
 
Tetras said:
der8auer made a similar point in his video, that usually you'd expect a CPU (at least, if it has been treated reasonably well and you've never fiddled with or even updated the BIOS in any way since you got it) to last for 10+ years and it is not unusual on this forum to see upgraders with Intel CPUs that are anywhere from 10 - 15 years old (like a 3770K is 12 years old).

Plus, even if you planned to get rid after a more modest 3-5 years, something like an i7 going by past history (e.g. 8700K) would have held onto the value pretty well, but as they get older, these CPUs are going to get harder and harder to shift.
Click to expand...
Motherboards are the much more likely component to fail long before CPUs which is why older CPUs go for dirt cheap while boards hold their price a bit more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom