Question DEGRADING Raptor lake CPUs

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,067
1,124
136
I noticed some reports about degrading i9 13900K and KF processors.

I experienced this problem myself, when I ran it at 6 GHz, light load (3 threads of Cinebench), at acceptable temperature and non extreme voltage. After only few minutes it crashed, and then it could not run even at stock setting without bumping the voltage a bit.

I was thinking about the cause for this and I believe the problem is, that people do not appreciate, how high these frequencies are and that the real comfortable frequency limit of these CPUs is probably at something like 5500 or 5600 MHz. These CPUs are made on a same process (possibly improved somehow) on which Alder lake CPUs were made. See the frequencies 12900KS runs at. The frequency improvement of the new process tweak may not be so high as some people presume.

Those 13900K CPUs are probably highly binned to be able to find those which contain some cores which can reliably run at 5800 MHz. Some of the 13900K probably have little/no OC reserve left and pushing them will cause them to degrade/break.

The conclusion for me is that the best you can do to your 13900K or 13900KF is to disable the 5800 MHz peak, which will allow you to offset the voltage lower, and then set all core maximal frequency to some comfortable level, I guess the maximum level could be 5600 MHz. With lowered voltage this frequency should be gentler to the processor than running it at original 5500 MHz at higher voltage. You can also run it at lower frequencies, allowing for even higher voltage drop, but then the CPU is slowly loosing its sense (unless you want some high efficiency CPU intended for heavy multithread loads).

Running it with some power consumption limit dependent on your cooling solution to keep the CPU at sensible temperature will help too for sure.
 
Last edited:

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
15,113
5,667
136
They made it happen. People will go to extraordinary lengths to keep food on the table for their family. Sometimes using legitimate methods, other times pushing hard into gray areas.

This being Intel, it's definitely possible that they screwed up binning. I was wondering about that. It may not have been malicious.

Like say some % of 14900K should have been downgraded to a lower tier.
 
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,456
2,374
136
This being Intel, it's definitely possible that they screwed up binning. I was wondering about that. It may not have been malicious.

Like say some % of 14900K should have been downgraded to a lower tier.
I would agree if this was just a batch or two but this has been going on a long time and Intel has been binning a long time.

I have been following Raptors at overclocking.net quite closely for over a year and the VIDs on most of the parts have been quite pathetic with most of the part requiring 1.5 volts for 6GHz. That's madness for Intel 7 when you consider the current required and heat generated when running something like Stockfish.
 

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,710
4,597
136
I hate to be too negative, but I hope there IS a class action lawsuit. Intel needs to acknowledge this in a big way. In this world of power shortages, a CPU that can draw more than a 96 core server CPU just to win a benchmark is insane. They need to pay for this mistake in a big way, as in BILLIONS it will cost them.

The vast majority of Intel 13th and 14th gen CPUs were purchased as part of a PC. None of those people have standing to sue Intel, they'd have to sue the OEM that made it like Dell, HP, etc. and it would be up to them to recover from Intel if the suits were successful. Most likely everyone in the class action suit against Dell would get a gift card for $27.11 or some other insignificant amount, that's how those things always turn out.

Now the people who bought boxed Intel CPUs to build/upgrade a system have standing, but they have a three year warranty which should cover everything so far. I don't know how people had been doing actually getting their failed CPUs replaced by Intel, but if Intel is smart they'd make sure that process works very smoothly. You can try to sue for failures after the warranty has expired, but the class would probably only cover those who could show negligence on Intel's part (i.e. after they knew they had a problem but hadn't yet made it public)
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,456
2,374
136
The vast majority of Intel 13th and 14th gen CPUs were purchased as part of a PC. None of those people have standing to sue Intel, they'd have to sue the OEM that made it like Dell, HP, etc. and it would be up to them to recover from Intel if the suits were successful. Most likely everyone in the class action suit against Dell would get a gift card for $27.11 or some other insignificant amount, that's how those things always turn out.

Now the people who bought boxed Intel CPUs to build/upgrade a system have standing, but they have a three year warranty which should cover everything so far. I don't know how people had been doing actually getting their failed CPUs replaced by Intel, but if Intel is smart they'd make sure that process works very smoothly. You can try to sue for failures after the warranty has expired, but the class would probably only cover those who could show negligence on Intel's part (i.e. after they knew they had a problem but hadn't yet made it public)
Why wouldn't people who purchased complete systems be owed the performance they purchased? I would think Intel would need to supply Dell with a CPU that can make the spec. Also, I wonder how many complete PC's are having issues since most reputable vendors, like Dell or HP, so quite a bit of validity testing before they "lock down" the BIOS. Also they have complete control over power supply and cooling.
I am going to bet most issues are coming from people building systems and pushing the chips hard.
 

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,511
1,571
136
What about lawsuits for those who have gotten VAC/EAC cheat bans in Fortnite and other multiplayer games? Probably valued at less than 10k in most cases so small claims but it is not a minor thing. If you get banned enough on Steam games, that sticks with your account and will be used against you in the future if cheating allegations come up against a person.
 

lakedude

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2009
2,680
479
126
I am going to bet most issues are coming from people building systems and pushing the chips hard.
Well sure, that is how this started in 2022. The people pushing their chips noticed first but then there are those server boards with no OC options that are still having issues.

If you haven't watched Wendell's videos on subject I highly recommend doing so.
 
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,064
15,200
136
Why wouldn't people who purchased complete systems be owed the performance they purchased? I would think Intel would need to supply Dell with a CPU that can make the spec. Also, I wonder how many complete PC's are having issues since most reputable vendors, like Dell or HP, so quite a bit of validity testing before they "lock down" the BIOS. Also they have complete control over power supply and cooling.
I am going to bet most issues are coming from people building systems and pushing the chips hard.
Have you read any of the 14 pages of this thread ? Even Intel agrees there is a flaw. Not to mention every website in the world.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,599
13,948
136
I think AMD did some additional quality testing in light of the ongoing Intel fiasco and reflected, "hey there are some niche situations where we might have similar problems." They are recalling the parts and re-binning to assure quality. Good on AMD.

Turns out they had a packaging typo that could not be ignored. Maybe this wasn't their only issue, but it still shows that assuming they have problem X because Intel has problem X is not the best course of action.
 
Reactions: lightmanek

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,484
24,222
146
Why wouldn't people who purchased complete systems be owed the performance they purchased? I would think Intel would need to supply Dell with a CPU that can make the spec. Also, I wonder how many complete PC's are having issues since most reputable vendors, like Dell or HP, so quite a bit of validity testing before they "lock down" the BIOS. Also they have complete control over power supply and cooling.
I am going to bet most issues are coming from people building systems and pushing the chips hard.
Here's a good spot in the video to pick up on how these CPUs are failing rapidly in a server environment


Blaming DIYers and board makers is so 4 months ago. Here and now, the situation is whether or not the MC patch gets validated. And if it does, can it keep CPUs with no obvious instability issues from degrading rapidly without a negative impact on performance?
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,063
8,025
136
At this rate, all they gotta do is lower the damage by limiting the voltage with their new microcode enough so CPU don't fail until after warranty and then they are off scott free.
The damage is already done, on multiple levels:
  • New microcode updates (if actually effective) will only save those chips that aren't damaged yet. All other 13th/14th gen chips may well be damaged already to some degree. Depending on the degradation the damage may show up now or years in the future.
  • BIOS updates already available already lower performance below what existing benchmarks promise the chips to be capable of.
  • Plenty users already have bad experience with 13th/14th gen chips, in not few cases going through several rounds of RMAs already.
  • Motherboard manufacturers were already thrown under the bus by Intel.
  • Beyond that DCs, integrators and OEMs/ODMs all are likely already internally aware of the potentially very high fault rate of 13th/14th gen chips. Depending on how Intel keeps handling the whole issue and how ready AMD and ARM chip manufacturers are to jump in you can bet companies are looking hard at reducing their dependency on Intel in the future.
  • Software and games suffering from crashes on 13th/14th gen chips started adding notices actively warning the users from continuing to use those chips.
I honestly think what the press is doing now is negligible in any case, a continuing rise in awareness is a given independent on what Intel does.

Short of a recall the only thing Intel can do to defuse the toxicity of this whole development is a "recall light" that they can spin in a positive light: Offering a lifetime guarantee for all 13th/14th gen chips. Anything less will just ensure 13th/14th gen chips giving people bad surprises for years to come, damaging Intel's image further and further, even if Intel finally manages to solve the cause at some point.
 

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,067
1,124
136
...

Short of a recall the only thing Intel can do to defuse the toxicity of this whole development is a "recall light" that they can spin in a positive light: Offering a lifetime guarantee for all 13th/14th gen chips.
Degradation is a normal process running in every piece of silicon, it only matters how quickly. The speed of degradations depends on current density (influenced by voltage needed to reach specific frequency), temperature (influenced by the means of cooling the chips) and usage intensity.

These CPUs will not last for a decade or two running reasonably quickly.

IMO the most practical scenario is to release "new" CPUs with lower frequencies that will last a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable usage intensity. For example lasting 5 years at 100% load 6 hours a day under a 6 heatpipe air cooler. I personally really do not expect more from a consumer CPU.

Then replace all original CPUs regardless if they are failing or not with these new CPUs.

For a professional use 24/7 release another products at even more lower frequencies, possibly with shorter life than 5 years. 3?
 
Last edited:

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,063
8,025
136
These CPUs will not last for a decade or two running reasonably quickly.
The nice thing about lifetime guarantees is that it makes everybody feel warm and fluffy but nearly nobody will think of it anymore after a decade or two. You can't get the same kind of response with a time limited guarantee, even if it's long.
 
Reactions: Tlh97 and coercitiv
Jul 27, 2020
19,613
13,479
146
The nice thing about lifetime guarantees is that it makes everybody feel warm and fluffy but nearly nobody will think of it anymore after a decade or two. You can't get the same kind of response with a time limited guarantee, even if it's long.
My first exposure to "legalese" was when a shopkeeper told me that lifetime warranty didn't mean "my lifetime". It meant the product's lifetime. If it gets discontinued, so does the warranty. Not sure if it works like this in all territories.
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,063
8,025
136
My first exposure to "legalese" was when a shopkeeper told me that lifetime warranty didn't mean "my lifetime". It meant the product's lifetime. If it gets discontinued, so does the warranty. Not sure if it works like this in all territories.
That's kinda a technical requirement, you can't replace what you don't make anymore after all. But yeah, that aspect makes it an even easier way out for Intel.
  • Recall: Oops, we need to ensure that we have actual replacements for all recalled chips.
  • Lifetime guarantee: Oops, we don't have any replacements anymore.
 

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
4,878
4,951
136
My first exposure to "legalese" was when a shopkeeper told me that lifetime warranty didn't mean "my lifetime". It meant the product's lifetime. If it gets discontinued, so does the warranty. Not sure if it works like this in all territories.
So what happens to the last buyer? No warranty? Sounds like a shady dealer speaking.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,484
24,222
146
Some of you have outdated info. The 13600KF is affected.
Intel Core 13th and 14th Generation desktop processors with 65W or higher base power – including K/KF/KS and 65W non-K variants – could be affected by the elevated voltages issue. However, this does not mean that all processors listed are (or will be) impacted by the elevated voltages issue.

With Intel admitting that, it's a safe bet it's worse yet. How I would handle it, is as soon as my board maker has the new bios with patch, I'd RMA my CPU and start fresh regardless. Maybe it takes a year or 2 more to exhibit instability compared to the higher end parts, who knows? I'd rather start with a clean slate.
 

DZero

Member
Jun 20, 2024
89
47
51
Some of you have outdated info. The 13600KF is affected.


With Intel admitting that, it's a safe bet it's worse yet. How I would handle it, is as soon as my board maker has the new bios with patch, I'd RMA my CPU and start fresh regardless. Maybe it takes a year or 2 more to exhibit instability compared to the higher end parts, who knows? I'd rather start with a clean slate.
Ok, that is WORSE since if STOCK chips are affected, is a total example of the trope of "Idiot Design".
What happened to went from a decent Alder Lake to some faulty gen processors?
 

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,710
4,597
136
Why wouldn't people who purchased complete systems be owed the performance they purchased? I would think Intel would need to supply Dell with a CPU that can make the spec. Also, I wonder how many complete PC's are having issues since most reputable vendors, like Dell or HP, so quite a bit of validity testing before they "lock down" the BIOS. Also they have complete control over power supply and cooling.
I am going to bet most issues are coming from people building systems and pushing the chips hard.

You're assuming that the performance impact of the fix will be noticeable. I wouldn't assume that. There are several possibilities I see for how Intel was delivering "too much voltage".

1- it was purely a bug, the tables delivered more voltage than was needed to achieve the desired frequency in certain performance modes, so the fix will not change the CPU's performance at all
2- they were overly aggressive with boosting voltage and frequency during turbo, the fix would have a minor impact in turbo (and might affect only ST, only MT, or both) but not make any difference in sustained performance
3- they were too aggressive with base frequency and pulling back the voltage there will affect both turbo and sustained performance

#3 is the only one that would make any real difference other than "oh no my GB6 score is a bit lower" (because GB6 pauses between subtests it allows CPUs to run at turbo for longer than a sustained benchmark like SPEC) but I view #3 as by far the least likely. I'd say 25% chance it is #1, 70% chance it is #2, 5% chance it is #3.

That all said, patches and other system changes increase or decrease performance ALL THE TIME, so a lawsuit on that is not going to be successful. If performance dropped by 20% or something then you might have had a case, but if performance drops by a single digit amount (and I'm betting on low to mid single digits, with low being the more likely and a 25% chance it is zero) that case isn't going to win in court. Too easy to point to examples of the exact same system getting different performance depending on where it is used (i.e. ambient temperatures in the house) or different BIOS options like power savings or DRAM timings.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |