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
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I love to see Intel dropping the ball this hard. They've been at the top for faaaar too long.
Zen 1 woke them up from their cosy slumber, they actually had to start competing again. Zen 2 outcompeted them hands down in almost every metric.
Right now, AMD beats them in performance and power usage, especially in power usage by a lot.
I also had a 4770k, great chip I believe back then Intel always ran chips around 1.2 volts
I have a 14700kf now and have no issues but I have down clocked to 5.1 ghz and made sure it never uses more than 1,2 volts
(never used Ecores or hyper threading)
If this is an oxidation issue then oh boy, really bad for intel (and me lol), and/or if its the ddr5 ram speed issue too, that would be so crazy and pretty much just as bad.
The video above has another source which listed SKUs they've seen affected, and this is the first one claiming Core i5s are also affected. They listed the 13600K and 13600KF. The 14th generation SKUs weren't analyzed, so not mentioned, but I figure the 14600K and 14600KF would therefore also be affected.
Also, this was the first (I think?) time that there were non-K models listed. The "vanilla" and "F" Core i9 and Core i7, as well as "T" (mobile Core i9) were also listed.
I personally have to agree with Gamers Nexus and I did before they even said it; I don't consider the 13th or 14th generation as a viable product line at least until a statement and fix is made by Intel. But my personal recommendation is just that and only that, so don't take my recommendation unless you want to anyway.
Keep in mind that this is largely behaving like a degradation issue, meaning being fine today might not put you in the clear. A lot of people have had ones that were fine and then degraded, only to do an RMA and get one that is fine at first, but then degrade again. Some have been through three or four CPUs and they keep doing it. Others enforce limits and regain stability. Some, also, find that gained stability is temporary. Some claim they enforce power limits and it's fine for months and months... and then suddenly, nearly a year later give or take, the instability issues start. There's endless testimonials from end users claiming these sorts of things. There's just too many unknowns as to what the cause is and therefore it's unknown what fixes may help, other than "there's a not-insignificant number of stability and degradation issues". So the best blanket recommendation is "this is not a viable product at this time" in my eyes.
is it the same kind of issue with amd x3d cpus 'exploding' due to the board overvolting?
crack dye and shorting, or something else?
A technologically illiterate person will brag about their "i7 processor" for their generic computer. I have never heard similar mentioning behind "Ryzen 7" being in their generic laptops.
According to steam, it's still 2/3 Intel users 1/3 AMD. But I'd love to see a few years of AMD being the objectively better choice that everyone flocks to.
Also, this is perhaps a bit of an overreaction? Seems to me like the nature of the problem is likely the increased power limit from the 12th gen. chips from 241 watts to 255 watts. Since i5s cap at 180 watts they'd be unaffected. I kind of doubt it's the vias, because if it was the vias, 12th gen should be effected too, since that'd be a motherboard issue, right? Never heard of a C.P.U. via before at least.
We know for a fact that 12th gen is unaffected, and there's next to no word on i5s being affected, so it's probably just a matter of 253 watts being too much power to pump down that socket for whatever reason. The i9 12900 only draws 241, and the 14600 only draws 180.
Moreover, between the 12400f, the 12600kf, it is hard to advise purchasing anything through the 5600 through to the 5800x on AM4, and if you can jump to the 14600kf as an upgrade path that's perhaps sufficiently comparable to a 5700x3D that we wouldn't worry much about that either.[gamersnexus.net]. I mean, if you build to the 5700x3D right away, that's a bit of a different story since it's much cheaper than a 14600k right now, but those 14600k prices will deprecate eventually if you're not buying into that level of performance straight away. Plus if you were to buy into that level of performance straight away, it'd probably be better to do so on AM5 so you have a future upgrade path.
If I had to take a shot at building a whole new system immediately, I'd still take a gamble on LGA 1700 over AM4, although given that I am already on AM4, that doesn't particularly make much in the way of sense for me.
Moreover, the nature of the beast is that Zen 5 is basically coming out as we speak, and arrow lake is expected for not very long after. It's not really a good time to be buying until we know what's what with Zen 5 and the upcoming Zen 3 refresh chips at least.
AMD's issue was with the SOC voltage getting fed 1.4V to 1.5V during spikes and frying it. The fix was to limit the voltage to the SOC; this was identified swiftly and the fix was pushed out swiftly. A very limited number of chips were ever affected.
Intel's issue is... complicated. It's not yet confirmed what the root cause(es) is (or are), but what is known for sure is that a not-insignificant number of chips are behaving like they are degrading. This is speculated between 10% to 25% to 50%, or "millions" of chips (depending on the source and what their methodology was; I think one even had basically 100% fail), and in that case of that "millions" number, that was only counting the 13th generation ones analyzed thus far by the unnamed source, not the additional 14th generation. The chips typically lose stability over time. Some are unstable out of the box. The "updated BIOS limits" aren't the fix (Intel has admitted this). It's being found to affect most Raptor Lake CPUs, although higher tier ones are affected sooner. Reports of the symptoms have been showing up since as early as late last year (if not earlier), but mostly via user to user corroboration on forums and social media. Now, a lot of "note comparing" and corroborating involving big name Intel customers is being done to find out if there's truly something to is. Turns out, yes, there is. They're dealing with a lot of headaches over it.
If you need caught up on the latest news about it, the first "recent" video about it is this...
TL;DW - CPUs serving as game servers in W680 chipset boards that aren't pushed still eventually degrade at an alarming rate. I/O errors and out of video memory errors are common. Disabling e-cores barely helps, but limiting boost speed/p-core maximum and/or memory configuration (lower DIMM count/lower memory speed) helps, at least in the immediate short term. Crash reports from games have Raptor Lake CPUs (especially Core i9 and Core i7) over-represented to an alarming degree (95%+ of instances).
And then after that, there's information from the video above. There could be a possible issue with oxidation (flaw in manufacturing process) leading to rapid degradation via electromigration. It's also affecting Core i5s (previously thought to be Core i9 and Core i7 only) and some non-K models, and even laptop models. Basically, majority of the Raptor Lake lineup is in question, even if the lower SKUs are far less quick/prone to show issues.
LTT (whether you like them or not) claims Intel needs to do a recall, and Gamers Nexus claims they can't recommend (13th and 14th generation) Intel CPUs as of now.
As for the 13th generation mentioned and not 14th generation, that's because they only listed 13th generation SKUs period. Watch that part in the video and it's only 13th generation. That's simply all they analyzed thus far. If the 13600K/KF is showing up, I would almost guarantee the 14600K/KF is affected as well.
In reality, if this is a manufacturing process flaw, the entire lineup likely is (and maybe only those manufactured between certain dates, and maybe only those from one of their two plants [one is in Israel and the other is in Arizona in the US]). It's simply that the issue is causing degradation that shows sooner the higher the SKU.
Whether the Core i5s are affected on a technical level and won't degrade before they'd be "performance irrelevant" is another question, but considering they show up in amounts that is being logged individually and are still young CPUs, well... I wouldn't feel safe with one long term is what I'm saying. But for all we know the sample count for them was like 3 compared to hundreds of Core i7s compared to thousands of Core i9s, in which case they would be far less likely to show symptoms compared to the higher SKUs.