So are all Intel i5/i7/i9 13th/14th gen chips effectively defective?

[Iggy Wolf]

Based on some of the articles I'm recently reading, there's now talk of a class action lawsuit due to the instability of the Raptor Lake chips apparently being a manufacturing defect that's gonna result in most of them failing within the next 3-4 years. I mean, we're not talking about just a few gamer users here.

Entire companies and data centers probably have those chips. And I doubt they're just gonna take it lying down or let Intel off the hook that easily. It's crazy to think they could detect this issue earlier. People's PC's weren't BSODing or having the CPUs crash just because.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

I can't remember the last timeI just left Intel Turbo Boost enabled. I always used to just disable that and then OC the Base to what the Turbo Boost would have been, sometimes higher if it can handle it.

I never liked or have a use for Turbo or Core Parking. I could give a crap about overall power usage, again as long as it's not prematurely killing the Motherboard or CPU and the thermals are all good.

Turning all that turbo, core parking and power saving crap off was the only way I could OC CPUs like 8350 to 4.4Ghz or higher. I've done that on quite a few and they ran that way for years no problems.

We're not supposed to do this with modern processors from either Intel or AMD. The reason why is because not all cores on the processor can all hit the same maximum speed. You may have 2 out of 8 cores for example that could do 5.8 Ghz while the other 6 cores could only do 5.4 Ghz (again this is just a theoretical example to get my point across). In that scenario if you were matching all cores to the same manual overclock then you would have all cores limited to 5.4 ghz and those 2 faster cores would never be able to hit their maximum peak that they were capable of.

If you use either AMD or Intel in automatic mode (Turbo Boost on for Intel) then when you play lightly threaded games like single-threaded games the fastest cores on the processor will boost up to their maximum speed, often 5.8 - 6.0 Ghz on 13900K and 14900K.

Manual all-core overclocking pretty much ended years ago. That is the completely wrong way to overclock any modern processor.

But we're talking about older CPUs, neither of us even have LGA1700 IIRC. Latest I have is a 10850K.

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Originally posted by 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

We're not supposed to do this with modern processors from either Intel or AMD. The reason why is because not all cores on the processor can all hit the same maximum speed. You may have 2 out of 8 cores for example that could do 5.8 Ghz while the other 6 cores could only do 5.4 Ghz (again this is just a theoretical example to get my point across). In that scenario if you were matching all cores to the same manual overclock then you would have all cores limited to 5.4 ghz and those 2 faster cores would never be able to hit their maximum peak that they were capable of.

If you use either AMD or Intel in automatic mode (Turbo Boost on for Intel) then when you play lightly threaded games like single-threaded games the fastest cores on the processor will boost up to their maximum speed, often 5.8 - 6.0 Ghz on 13900K and 14900K.

Manual all-core overclocking pretty much ended years ago. That is the completely wrong way to overclock any modern processor.

But we're talking about older CPUs, neither of us even have LGA1700 IIRC. Latest I have is a 10850K.

No. We're not talking about any processor from the 10'th generation. The topic of this thread literally says only the 13'th gen and 14'th gen processors. Their comment therefore means they were referring to manually overclocking the 13'th gen and 14'th gen processors with a manual fixed clock speed.

[kingjames488]

Originally posted by Floid:

13th & 14th gen have proven to be problematic. But it's nothing compared to what's potentially in store for us with 15th gen Arrow Lake or beyond - with multi-layering.

hope there aren't a bunch of broken arrows... heh.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

Originally posted by r.linder:

But we're talking about older CPUs, neither of us even have LGA1700 IIRC. Latest I have is a 10850K.

No. We're not talking about any processor from the 10'th generation. The topic of this thread literally says only the 13'th gen and 14'th gen processors. Their comment therefore means they were referring to manually overclocking the 13'th gen and 14'th gen processors with a manual fixed clock speed.

...No, read back into the actual reply thread. Bad Motha was responding me to mentioning that Intel's Turbo Boost has had issues since at least Coffee Lake, CPUs being unstable or possibly facing minor degradation is not a new thing that just started with Raptor Lake, it's been a continuous problem for years that only got worse as Intel was pushing their silicon to the absolute limit trying to keep up and ahead with AMD. Previously the issues were because of motherboard vendors adding in settings by default like multi-core enhancement which boosted all cores higher than they normally would.

He was reminiscing about how he hasn't had it enabled for years and how he hasn't used default motherboard settings for years.

We weren't talking specifically about LGA1700 and it doesn't matter, it's on topic because this has been an ongoing issue with Intel and its partners.

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Originally posted by 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

No. We're not talking about any processor from the 10'th generation. The topic of this thread literally says only the 13'th gen and 14'th gen processors. Their comment therefore means they were referring to manually overclocking the 13'th gen and 14'th gen processors with a manual fixed clock speed.

...No, read back into the actual reply thread.

Oh I see. You're actually admitting in public that you're writing off topic comments on purpose. I'm surprised you would admit to that knowing full well that doing that is a violation of the rules on the steam forums. Well since you're openly admitting to it I guess I should go inform the moderators.

[kingjames488]

Originally posted by 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

Originally posted by r.linder:

...No, read back into the actual reply thread.

Oh I see. You're actually admitting in public that you're writing off topic comments on purpose. I'm surprised you would admit to that knowing full well that doing that is a violation of the rules on the steam forums. Well since you're openly admitting to it I guess I should go inform the moderators.

you're both kinda wrong IMO...

and the rule applies to comments like "no one asked you"... not peoples general unwillingness to participate in a discussion.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

Originally posted by r.linder:

...No, read back into the actual reply thread.

Oh I see. You're actually admitting in public that you're writing off topic comments on purpose. I'm surprised you would admit to that knowing full well that doing that is a violation of the rules on the steam forums. Well since you're openly admitting to it I guess I should go inform the moderators.

That report would be ignored because it's on topic, the same issues plaguing Raptor Lake in regards to overvoltage have been somewhat prevalent for the last six years or so, this isn't a new problem. it's an old problem that got worse. Boost and multi-core enhancement settings have been an ongoing problem for years and motherboards have been overvolting a bit for years as well. AMD suffered problems for the same reason when ASUS and Gigabyte motherboards were melting 7000X3D chips due to overvolting the SoC on top of what bad EXPO profiles were doing.
That's what we were discussing and it wasn't ongoing, you just jumped in to argue about how the way we choose to do things is wrong in your book.

So basically what you did was actually off-topic because you didn't pay any mind to what we were actually talking about and instead went on a rant about how overclocking is bad. And if you actually paid any attention to the thread topic then you'd know that stock settings are degrading 14th gen CPUs because of the eTVB bug, so tweaking is necessary to protect the CPU from itself, literally, until Intel properly fixes the issues with microcode updates.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

I don't OC that way with AMD Ryzen stuff but with Intel I usually I have not had an issue doing it the way I do.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

I don't OC that way with AMD Ryzen stuff but with Intel I usually I have not had an issue doing it the way I do.

My i9-10850K has been clocked to 5000 MHz all-core for the majority of the time since I got it years ago and it hasn't degraded in the slightest. 14900Ks can barely manage that on just the P-cores because they really screwed up on the microcode, if Intel hadn't screwed around for so long then 6 GHz would've been nothing to them by now

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

I don't OC that way with AMD Ryzen stuff but with Intel I usually I have not had an issue doing it the way I do.

My i9-10850K has been clocked to 5000 MHz all-core for the majority of the time since I got it years ago and it hasn't degraded in the slightest. 14900Ks can barely manage that on just the P-cores because they really screwed up on the microcode, if Intel hadn't screwed around for so long then 6 GHz would've been nothing to them by now

Yes I've done that for basically every PC I have, and for others would wanted me to do that for them; from 12th Gen all the way back to the days of Core 2nd Gen. Little to no problems doing that. Mostly because of using decent Motherboards and Coolers; not junk.

But forget 13th/14th Gen junk, never going to have that crap in my house. If my customers want it, that's on them. But at least I have an official warning I can provide to them if they decide to want to go that route and if they ignore the warning, that's on them. I'm also going to let them know that if the CPU goes faulty, they themselves are going to have to duke it out with Intel cause I'm not taking any blame on it or dealing with Intel with this non-sense. The last time I've ever had to RMA a CPU was back in the days of Athlon XP. I think I had maybe 1x AMD FX CPU that was DOA and 1x Intel 3rd Gen 3770K that was DOA; other then that. Very little issues with CPUs over the years, until now. I have not had a single AMD Ryzen CPU come back to me. That's over 1500 system AMD Ryzen builds right there, since 2017.

Now on the subject of Motherboard RMAs, that's a different story. I've had to do quite a few of those over the years. If anything Motherboards and GPUs was the highest % of things I've had to RMA over the last 30 years.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

Originally posted by r.linder:

My i9-10850K has been clocked to 5000 MHz all-core for the majority of the time since I got it years ago and it hasn't degraded in the slightest. 14900Ks can barely manage that on just the P-cores because they really screwed up on the microcode, if Intel hadn't screwed around for so long then 6 GHz would've been nothing to them by now

Yes I've done that for basically every PC I have, and for others would wanted me to do that for them; from 12th Gen all the way back to the days of Core 2nd Gen. Little to no problems doing that. Mostly because of using decent Motherboards and Coolers; not junk.

But forget 13th/14th Gen junk, never going to have that crap in my house. If my customers want it, that's on them. But at least I have an official warning I can provide to them if they decide to want to go that route and if they ignore the warning, that's on them. I'm also going to let them know that if the CPU goes faulty, they themselves are going to have to duke it out with Intel cause I'm not taking any blame on it or dealing with Intel with this non-sense. The last time I've ever had to RMA a CPU was back in the days of Athlon XP. I think I had maybe 1x AMD FX CPU that was DOA and 1x Intel 3rd Gen 3770K that was DOA; other then that. Very little issues with CPUs over the years, until now. I have not had a single AMD Ryzen CPU come back to me. That's over 1500 system AMD Ryzen builds right there, since 2017.

Now on the subject of Motherboard RMAs, that's a different story. I've had to do quite a few of those over the years. If anything Motherboards and GPUs was the highest % of things I've had to RMA over the last 30 years.

Yeah it's rare for CPUs to be faulty because there's so few points of failure and the manufacturing is solid, compared to GPUs and motherboards where there's so many components going into them and every manufacturer is prone to making mistakes.
Have an original Pentium and an i386 that still work last I was able to check, have 3rd and 4th gen Core chips that still work, as do basically millions of people.

Raptor Lake was just a colossal screwup.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

The only time lately I do not do that form of OC (where you disable the Turbo and such) is with Ryzen. Ryzen you can literally just run it out the box with a decent Motherboard and RAM and it just works like it should. I keep it as cool as possible so it can auto OC as high as possible. To me everything should be that simple really. Now sure it wasn't exactly this way with Ryzen 1xxx/2xxx series but after that, Ryzen got SO much better.

Some keep saying that all apps and games use the CPU cache to the fullest without doing anything. That is not true at all. First off, your CPU will never perform like it was designed to until after you install the official Chipset Driver. And apps and games actually have to be designed to use that extra cache. Like many old games for example won't touch your L3 cache. Or may not actually benefit from having more, like many of the workstation CPUs have.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

The only time lately I do not do that form of OC (where you disable the Turbo and such) is with Ryzen. Ryzen you can literally just run it out the box with a decent Motherboard and RAM and it just works like it should. I keep it as cool as possible so it can auto OC as high as possible. To me everything should be that simple really. Now sure it wasn't exactly this way with Ryzen 1xxx/2xxx series but after that, Ryzen got SO much better.

Some keep saying that all apps and games use the CPU cache to the fullest without doing anything. That is not true at all. First off, your CPU will never perform like it was designed to until after you install the official Chipset Driver. And apps and games actually have to be designed to use that extra cache. Like many old games for example won't touch your L3 cache. Or may not actually benefit from having more, like many of the workstation CPUs have.

Ryzen is definitely an outlier because there's no benefit, already goes as far as it safely can out of the box, and changing the CPU multiplier disables silicon protections like the FIT which means voltage needs to be painstakingly carefully monitored if one still manually overclocks for some reason.


Cache only makes a difference based on the load, that's the fatal flaw of 3D V-cache in particular, reason why Ryzen 9 doesn't automatically be as good has less to do with the total L3 cache and more to do with the fact that only a certain portion of the cache can be accessed by each CCX, for example in sections of 16MB per CCX.

The same thing often goes for the lower tiers as well, they're never actually accessing 100% of their cache for a load unless all cores are active on the same load, and if the load actually needs all of that cache to begin with.

People don't understand cache, something like this was tried around two decades ago and it didn't go well, AMD managed to pull it off because the design actually works, and there are a lot more loads these days that can actually make use of it.

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

Some keep saying that all apps and games use the CPU cache to the fullest without doing anything. That is not true at all. First off, your CPU will never perform like it was designed to until after you install the official Chipset Driver. And apps and games actually have to be designed to use that extra cache. Like many old games for example won't touch your L3 cache. Or may not actually benefit from having more, like many of the workstation CPUs have.

Actually you are completely incorrect. All processors that have L3 cache will always route all code through all layers of the cache, L1, L2, and L3 as part of the pipeline. As a result all games, apps, and programs will always run through the L3 cache every time they are running. This is basic CPU architecture. All processors with L3 cache have always functioned this way since the first CPU to ship with L3 cache (Pentium 4 Extreme Edition). We had old processors with L3 cache way back when in 2004.

The reason some games see a benefit from CPU's with a larger L3 cache is they are coded to optimize their functions for the time in the pipeline when they are in the L3 cache and being processed. All games will use the L3 cache but only some were coded to fully leverage large L3 caches on processors.

We do not need a special driver, or special software to use the L3 cache on processors: Everything is already using it. What those drivers and software do is OPTIMIZE the code to favor the L3 cache. There is a very big difference in terminology there.

[kingjames488]

this is what happenes when you move everything all over the place... never heard of an issue like this before they tried to move caches around and hyperclock everything without my telling it to do so...