• 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..

It seems that intel have now released the Microcode updates to 'fix' the issue. Interestingly, the latest BIOS resolves non-k CPU's:

"The new BIOS includes Intel microcode 0x129 and adjusts the factory default settings for the non-K processors, enhancing the stability of Intel Core 13th and 14th gen desktop processors.

The previous microcode update was:

"Updated with microcode 0x125 to ensure eTVB operates within Intel specifications

I'm wondering if this is it now and intel have drawn a line under it.... I won't be applying the 0x129 BIOS since I have a K processor.
 
Yodhrin said:
I'm going to ask to be spoonfed a little here, because trying to find concrete information on this is a bleedin' nightmare. I have a 13700k bought pretty much a year ago, so probably within the "potentially affected" batches, but what *exactly* does "my chip is humped" look like in practice? Is it *only* full system crashes I have to worry about, or is stuff like games randomly CTDing and windows cacking itself when I try to take a screenshot also a possible indicator? And if it is, how do I tell apart "my chip is humped" from everyday "it's Current Year, all software is buggy garbage and all customers are permanent beta testers" instability? Is there a specific, verifiable test I can run that will tell me one way or the other? Ideally something OCUK will accept as actual proof, because I really don't fancy doing the RMA Shuffle with them again as I did with my last CPU where I send it in and they insist it works fine on their test bench and send it back only for it to still fail to boot, rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...
Bizarrely, Intel recommended a video (in one of their reddit posts, early on with this issue) where the main test was installing the nvidia driver. I think because it uses the decompression algorithm that originally exposed the problem.
 
Last edited:
The latest microcode fixing things (and/or prevents then getting worse) without affecting performance too much is what the microcode should have been all along?

Anyway, some have found error by trawling Event Viewer but you'd really want a list of IDs which you could look for with Powershell or similar as otherwise you'd get lost there.

Once more is known, I'm sure someone will write a tool.
 
So i have been running my 13900k with an undervolt from day one. 38/39k with tvb+2 and temps never getting near the max to throttle. I was running 2802 bios for my x690 Hero and i have had virtually zero issues. All except tropico 6 which would crash... not sure if thats cpu or gpu related but all started when i installed the 4080. I decided to tip the toe in the water to test the latest 3701 from Asus and i learned the hard way of not broken dont fix it. I seemed to drop 4k in cbr23 and my temps stay in check with the new defaults etc but i seem to drop to 5gzh all core in cbr23. i tried to tune it with similar settings and the score dropped to like 17k. I wrestled with it for hrs yesterday but couldnt get anything over 35k in the score. Downgraded the Bios and back working as it was.
 
spooks said:
Even though it is for non k processors? It's also Beta firmware..

Will have a think but just wonder why it says 'non k'
Click to expand...
It's not just for non K, I think your miss reading - The new BIOS includes Intel microcode 0x129 and adjusts the factory default settings for the non-K processors, so it's doing two things:
1 - The new BIOS includes Intel microcode 0x129 - all gen 13 and 14 CPU's should now be fixed on intel profile UNLESS cpu has degrading issue's, which is where you RMA with Intel (extra 2yr warrenty so now 5yr warrenty)
2 - adjusts the factory default settings for the non-K processors

anyways that's how i read it and various testing video's are showing this on K processors as per previous video in this forum shows
 
McManicMan said:
It's not just for non K, I think your miss reading - The new BIOS includes Intel microcode 0x129 and adjusts the factory default settings for the non-K processors, so it's doing two things:
1 - The new BIOS includes Intel microcode 0x129 - all gen 13 and 14 CPU's should now be fixed on intel profile UNLESS cpu has degrading issue's, which is where you RMA with Intel (extra 2yr warrenty so now 5yr warrenty)
2 - adjusts the factory default settings for the non-K processors

anyways that's how i read it and various testing video's are showing this on K processors as per previous video in this forum shows
Click to expand...

Maybe but if that is the case, they have definitely worded it poorly. The sentence implies this fix is just for non k processors. I'll just apply it anyway. Cheers.
 
Intel latest statement today (August 9 2024) includes the following

"Intel’s current analysis finds there is a significant increase to the minimum operating voltage (Vmin) across multiple cores on affected processors due to elevated voltages. Elevated voltage events can accumulate over time and contribute to the increase in Vmin for the processor.

The latest microcode update (0x129) will limit voltage requests above 1.55V as a preventative mitigation for processors not experiencing instability symptoms. This latest microcode update will primarily improve operating conditions for K/KF/KS processors. Intel is also confirming, based on extensive validation, all future products will not be affected by this issue.

Intel is continuing to investigate mitigations for scenarios that can result in Vmin shift on potentially impacted Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors. Intel will provide updates by end of August. "

The last paragraph seems to be new so this saga may not be entirely over yet and there may be something else towards the end of this month (August 2024).
 
running latest microcode seems to have fixed voltage stability for now but no core goes above 5.8 before any of this out the box was hitting 41k in r23 multi threaded , slowly lost performance over these fixes , lets see final bios before i send this crap back
 
marcus_667 said:
running latest microcode seems to have fixed voltage stability for now but no core goes above 5.8 before any of this out the box was hitting 41k in r23 multi threaded , slowly lost performance over these fixes , lets see final bios before i send this crap back
Click to expand...
41k was the kind of result you’d expect from the unlimited ‘unsafe’ bios. I am getting 38.1k with the new bios and an undervolt. I am happy with this. I’ll take a stable and long life cpu over and extra few k in an synthetic benchmark.

Mine does hit 6ghz but not for any meaningful amount of time.
 
Last edited:
Yodhrin said:
I'm going to ask to be spoonfed a little here, because trying to find concrete information on this is a bleedin' nightmare. I have a 13700k bought pretty much a year ago, so probably within the "potentially affected" batches, but what *exactly* does "my chip is humped" look like in practice? Is it *only* full system crashes I have to worry about, or is stuff like games randomly CTDing and windows cacking itself when I try to take a screenshot also a possible indicator? And if it is, how do I tell apart "my chip is humped" from everyday "it's Current Year, all software is buggy garbage and all customers are permanent beta testers" instability? Is there a specific, verifiable test I can run that will tell me one way or the other? Ideally something OCUK will accept as actual proof, because I really don't fancy doing the RMA Shuffle with them again as I did with my last CPU where I send it in and they insist it works fine on their test bench and send it back only for it to still fail to boot, rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...

I take it you need to pay postage in some form or another every time you do this?

Stelly said:
Its a pretty poor situation at the moment - everyone is hoping that Intel will get there act together and actually do an Asus and apologise and make it easy for people with this issue - There is pressure on them to do it, and I hope people start voting with their money as most of these big companies only care when things start effecting their bottom line. The only thing you can do at the moment is what Intel have said which is pretty poor - "Keep sending it back untill you get a customer service person that accepts the RMA" it is terrible customer service but its what Intel have been telling most Tech influencers and posting in their information... if it were me I would be waiting untill they have some better RMA procedures in place or maybe give it a go once now and see how it goes... gutted for you mate :(

Stelly
Click to expand...

As i understand it everytime you send it to Intel for RMA you pay for postage, if not they charge you return postage if they reject the RMA, so Intel telling their customers to keep trying over and over again if at first they don't succeed is rather cynical, its like: We will accept the RMA but only after its cost you a significant fanatical penalty for daring to complain.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I take it you need to pay postage in some form or another every time you do this?



As i understand it everytime you send it to Intel for RMA you pay for postage, if not they charge you return postage if they reject the RMA, so Intel telling their customers to keep trying over and over again if at first they don't succeed is rather cynical, its like: We will accept the RMA but only after its cost you a significant fanatical penalty for daring to complain.
Click to expand...
Nah, that's not a dead parrot. It's resting.
 
humbug said:
As i understand it everytime you send it to Intel for RMA you pay for postage, if not they charge you return postage if they reject the RMA, so Intel telling their customers to keep trying over and over again if at first they don't succeed is rather cynical, its like: We will accept the RMA but only after its cost you a significant fanatical penalty for daring to complain.
Click to expand...
Really, where did you see that? :o

From what I saw with the rejected requests, the RMA was rejected prior to it being authorised.

I don't think I've seen any RMA for AMD or Intel where it was rejected after the CPU arrived with them, with really big tech companies I'm not sure they even retain that facility to re-ship because their returns process is so rigid.
 
Tetras said:
Really, where did you see that? :o

From what I saw with the rejected requests, the RMA was rejected prior to it being authorised.

I don't think I've seen any RMA for AMD or Intel where it was rejected after the CPU arrived with them, with really big tech companies I'm not sure they even retain that facility to re-ship because their returns process is so rigid.
Click to expand...

I'm not stating i'm asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom