Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Not blaming the game at all. I'm thinking how much it will speed up the process, considering this is the most CPU demanding game I have in my library right now and it's getting worse with every patch.
constains alot of information about crash and malfunctions.
It's not must be true, FYI.
And there is just no evidence that the deterioration is progressively worse over time. So basically, what you're really looking at is Intel's Foveros (salvage previous gen components on higher nm processes and fuse them on the new die with increasingly cheaper production processes, while outsourcing parts of the component production to production countries) process having created unstable results that all met the specifications at the time of the production. But which have then subsequently been affected by changes to microcode and how voltage peaks on Intel's insane effect bursts over time to meet the initially advertised performance targets.
So if you've been following GamersNexus on this - they're not lying, obviously, but they're also not really trying to look at this outside what they can actually document. So homing in on a specific factor that can be proven is very important -- but it also detracts from the fact that we know the foveros-production has had inconsistent yields from experience and testing before, and that Intel has been working hard -- very hard, in fact -- on alleviating their customers' concerns about the foveros process being a liability in the past, when they chose to go with this rather than change their production lines to lower nm process socs. In fact, they have sold this as being better than lower nm socs by the fact that they were able to put higher effect on these components, with higher boosts and effect up in the range of 1000W(for small peak moments).
And then when it turns out that server customers - who frequently advertise with having cores permanently overclocked - are running into issues because some of their server boards fail to survive -- blaming this on the production not meeting the performance targets required for a home computer is completely bonk.
Note as well that oxidization issues is something that has been there all along, and is "managed" and adjusted by microcode and voltage adjustments on a regular basis. This is known and has been there for the foveros production step since the beginning.
While the existence of that doesn't preclude that what you're really getting on a gaming computer is variable peak effect issues, that then cause microcode crunches - which then causes unpredictable thread response. Which in turn causes the hangs.
And that issue isn't directly there because of a specific oxidation fault developing over time (this is a problem that occurs at production, and then doesn't get significantly worse over time. It just has to be accounted for consciously, as mentioned).
But because Intel is promising to their customers that the performance targets are significantly higher than what the production yields on average actually can handle.
Basically: yes, this can affect you as a home customer. But unless you're running static pl2/pl1 overclocks on raised voltages, it's extremely likely that you'll just never see it. Not on HD2, not on Witcher or Cyberpunk, etc., or anything - even when you run your own server.
But what you will see are the issues where blowing through the internal tdp, and hitting the microcode-adjustment limits (that all modern cpus are using), is going to cause a potential core/cache sync issue. That then basically will be seen in the same statistics as when you run a server with "permanently overclocked cores". I.e., you'll have the same issues, just not as frequently.
So this is an Intel disaster. And I hope it's going to be covered more holistically in the future. But it's not as simple as "they ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up" on production, and now they've been trying to cover it up. They had an issue that affects all cpus made on the foveros combination step - and they then failed to adjust the performance targets of those products to something reasonable.
But be completely aware of that even if microscope tests come back that shows oxidisation to some degree - that this is not an unknown side-effect. It's just that Intel has been marketing this process as if it eliminated the issues, and that the yields and product was actually better on the foveros production than on the integrated process other processors are typically made with now.
When I bought my CPU and installed it (Beginning of November 2023) I paid around $380 for it. the i9 13900KF was around $200 more, and for the performance, I couldn't justify the cost - frankly, it's a crazy up-charge for a few extra hundred hertz.
I think it should also be clarified that the issues discussed only apply to the 13900K(+/-F) and 14900K(+/-F), i.e: the i9 13th and 14th generation CPU's that are overclockable (and/or with or without the integrated GPU) if you have a 13700 or lower for the 13th gen, or 14700 or lower for 14th gen (regardless of suffix's) you will not have a problem.
That's not correct. It impacts ALL 13-14th gen Intel CPUs but the higher the model, the more it's boosted straight from factory, so the higher voltages cook it even faster. Your 13700 is somewhere slightly in the upper half of the cooking list but yea, the 900 are getting cooked the fastest it seems.
That's not correct. It DOES impact gamers MASSIVELY. The issue is that the CPUs are overvolting while boosting. Once your CPU starts overvolting while boosting (which nowadays CPUs in games run almost ALWAYS boosted), eventually it gets damaged PERMANENTLY and you start getting crashes.
Moreover, tests done by INTEL have shown that:
"Even under idle conditions at relatively cool temperatures, sporadic elevated voltages are observed when the processor is resumed from low power states in order to service background operations before entering a low power state again."
So basically, it's over. Even if you used your 13-14th gen system for Instagram and Youtube only, it's probably affected.
Source: https://www.igorslab.de/en/search-for-the-solution-to-raptor-lakes-instabilities-continues/
Raptor Lake is cooked even if you don't do anything demanding, their top SKUs are still pumping massive voltages, what is really damaging the silicon isn't the voltage, but its high current, anyway, switch to AMD or your processor is going to end up like this[x.com]
So to me this whole outrage about it sounds like "pre-bunking" - an attempt to put a very serious problem, that was known, and that has been attempted to be addressed several times - on a wild claim about how people's cpus are going to blow up over time. That then allows Intel to say that it wasn't so bad afterwards. Which I would not put past Intel to successfully pull off - they have gotten away with significantly worse than this before.
While it is possible that the issues are bigger than Intel "admits" right now - you're absolutely not going to see Intel's gaming processors or home-processors magically decline over time and explode in the crackling mess of a destitute company that Intel really should be by now, were customers informed of what they're buying.
And odds are that the actual culprit of your and others' hangs on gaming platforms is going to remain unaddressed. Because the boosting at very high effect ranges is going to be skirting the thresholds of where you can expect there to have been tiny variations in production. And this will then selectively cause the microcode crunches that I mentioned - which is likely where the cause of the actual hangs are.
This doesn't rule out that there are oxidisation issues (like I said, the foveros process has that weakness, specifically introduced for cost-cutting in terms of the company expenditures, while increasing the kit-prices for customers). But that the oxidisation issues would so specifically cause the hangs on a general basis, like a switch? No chance whatsoever.
Once again I can't agree. I'm not talking about oxidation at all, because it's not clear if that's the root cause. Regardless of what the root cause is, we know what the effect is.
From the article(findings by Intel themselves):
– Intel observes a significant increase to the minimum operating voltage (Vmin) across multiple cores on returned affected processors from customers.
– This increase is similar in outcome to parts subjected to elevated voltage and temperature conditions for reliability testing.
– At a sufficiently high voltage, these short-duration events can accumulate over time, contributing to the increase in Vmin.
Posting source again: https://www.igorslab.de/en/search-for-the-solution-to-raptor-lakes-instabilities-continues/
So, it is 100% progressive and it's exactly a "slowly deteriorating type of scenario". Actually, you might be right, it's probably a "quickly deteriorating type of scenario" but it remains to be seen.
Anyways, I wanted to lay in this information here cause I haven't seen it talked about yet and wanted to see if people already had issues.