Also, thanks to Andreas Schilling pointing it out, the reddit post from Intel contains another important element:Since it's "not-news", I'll quote the Intel confirmation of oxidation issue one more time
For the Instability issue, we are delivering a microcode patch which addresses exposure to elevated voltages which is a key element of the Instability issue. We are currently validating the microcode patch to ensure the instability issues for 13th/14th Gen are addressed.
I’m against the idea of a voucher or discount to upgrade precisely because of your point: to “solve” the problem the consumer would have to shell out more dineros. Why does the consumer have to pay additional money to fix a problem that was not their fault? It makes no sense unless the upgrade is for free, but the bean counters won’t accept that, so I reckon a no hassles RMA program is the true solution.Quite the dilemma they’re in. I was thinking that last point, maybe discount an upgrade to ARL, but then customers would have to eat the cost of a new motherboard, unless they were to do some like half-off an upgrade for both CPU and mobo.
I bet they’re holding out on hope that the microcode update will be the fix they need so they can avoid these thorny issues.
I agree. That’s clearly the best option. Just get it done, take the hit and move on to ARL which needs to be solid so they can start building up their brand rep.I’m against the idea of a voucher or discount to upgrade precisely because of your point: to “solve” the problem the consumer would have to shell out more dineros. Why does the consumer have to pay additional money to fix a problem that was not their fault? It makes no sense unless the upgrade is for free, but the bean counters won’t accept that, so I reckon a no hassles RMA program is the true solution.
Always an option if alternatives get enough traction.it’s times like this I wish x86 was open to more companies.
After some testing on the 14900 non-K, I set the ICCMAX to 275A, limited all my cores to 5300MHz, (Asus Multicore Enhancement Unlimited - 90C)We don't know the cause of the apparent degradation, so we can't establish a "safe" profile. However, there are things you can do to make sure the CPU is operating within the limits recommended by Intel. Start by updating your BIOS and then check all the settings below to make sure motherboard is configured properly.
You can use the values in the "Performance" column for a 250W configuration, but you need to make sure the current limits are also enforced (ICCMAX). Also make sure that CEP, eTVB, TVB and TVB Voltage Optimizations are enabled. The last few settings are essential for making sure the CPU uses less voltage under light loads.
View attachment 103085
That no major review site has attempted to benchmark the new baseline is ridiculous.After some testing on the 14900 non-K, I set the ICCMAX to 275A, limited all my cores to 5300MHz, (Asus Multicore Enhancement Unlimited - 90C)
Running CB23 and HWMonitor, This limits me to 225W permanently and I can score 35000 in CB, which is about 3000 down from the best I can get.
These settings also limit the VCORE to 1.3V which I assume is safe for a 14900.
If I enforce limits or use Baseline, I score 22000 in CB, which is worse than both the 3950x and 12700 non-K I upgraded from. Should have kept it! Zen5 here I come. Intel Crap
As @Philste wrote we can expect Computerbase to post new results. I hope they'll do that when publishing their Zen5 review.That no major review site has attempted to benchmark the new baseline is ridiculous.
I know baseline is a moving target due Intel being evasive, but so much for independent reviewers!
Don't mention ComputerBase.As @Philste wrote we can expect Computerbase to post new results. I hope they'll do that when publishing their Zen5 review.
I also expect Phoronix to do something, as they did in the past with new microcode updates.
I saved you a seat on the couchI don't think I've ever proposed or endorsed conspiracy theories on the forum, but all the behavioral signs from Intel are telling me they're in cover up mode, more exactly in delay and damage control mode. Minimize RMAs. The official press release was meh and I was ready to let it go, but the reddit post and the 3rd party video endorsed by Intel stink from a mile away.
If any reviewer includes the 13900K(S)/14900K(S) benchmarks in Zen 5 review without an asterisk pointing out that there is no final Intel solution yet for stability issues, I would automatically consider them disingenuous.EDIT: Aussie Steve just concluded his DDR5 speed testing by saying HUB is not recommending 13&14 until at least after the patch next month. I don't know how it is possible to verify it solves the problem in that kind of timeframe. Realistically it'll take months to evaluate. I should hope he won't just bench it to confirm it doesn't nerf performance then give it a thumbs up.
The way I see it, it reminds me of the Narcissist’s Prayer:
- Intel CPUs don’t have a problem.
- And if it did, it didn’t affect a lot of people.
- Even if it affected a lot of people, the solution doesn’t reduce performance.
- Even if it does reduce performance, it’s not my fault. It was the mobo maker’s fault.
- And if it was my fault, we didn’t mean it.
- And if we meant it, you the consumer deserved it because all you care about is who has the longest bar or biggest number in the benchmark.
I’m on Xitter and even I start to see the usual Intel defenders go down this Prayer, one step at a time. First it was denial, then it was minimization, etc etc. At some point, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them say RPL is in the past and we shouldn’t care anymore, so let’s just focus on ARL, ya? Please? Pretty please??
This is the first attempt!
Look at voltages before the MC update during boost,EDIT: Aussie Steve just concluded his DDR5 speed testing by saying HUB is not recommending 13&14 until at least after the patch next month. I don't know how it is possible to verify it solves the problem in that kind of timeframe. Realistically it'll take months to evaluate. I should hope he won't just bench it to confirm it doesn't nerf performance then give it a thumbs up.
That's disappointing, I thought they were a serious review siteDon't mention ComputerBase.
"Benchmarks folgen" they wrote back on the 26th of April. Months later, nada.Intel Baseline Profile: BIOS-Updates gegen instabile K-CPUs
Intel hält sich weiterhin zu instabilen K-CPUs bedeckt. Derweil rollen Mainboard-Hersteller ein „Baseline Profile“ per BIOS-Update aus.www.computerbase.de
Perhaps Intel will come out with a Venn diagram that makes this all easier to understand.All this negativity.
Can you, just for a second, imagine what can be, unburdened by what has been?
I once posted on their forum on a news item (about older AM4 board not getting Zen3 support), and the impression I got is that they over value their contacts - in the case of my post more of "we will not sour our relationship with motherboard OEMs or AMD by asking awkward questions" vibe.That's disappointing, I thought they were a serious review site
If they include results from Intel in their Zen5 review without redoing them after the various patches that'd be misleading indeed.
Perhaps Intel will come out with a Venn diagram that makes this all easier to understand.
No, actually this is very good example that should be shown in schools:
I actually turned this on and listened to the opening and can confirm. You can tell from the delivery just how impressed he is.Buildzoid 1 hour long rant rant on 14900K in SuperMicro machines running Minecraft servers. I'll start listening now so can't offer any summary, but even the first 3minutes are worth it.
AI Summary:
Oh man, we've come full circle. I might get to know what YT'ers are saying now with walls of text. An hours worth of content in about 90 seconds.AI Summary:
The video discusses the issues with Intel's 14th generation 14900K CPUs, particularly in the context of running Minecraft servers. The key points are:1. Minecraft servers are very single-threaded and memory-bound, which puts a lot of stress on the 14900K CPUs. This has led to a very high failure rate of these CPUs, with 30% of them failing within 1-2 months when running at 5.7 GHz.2. To mitigate the issue, the data center running these Minecraft servers has started disabling the Thermal Velocity Boost feature, which has reduced the failure rate to under 5% over longer periods of time (3-4 months).3. The data center has stopped offering new contracts for 14900K-based servers due to the high maintenance costs associated with frequently replacing failed CPUs.4. The video also examines the power and current settings on a specific Super Micro server board running the 14900K, which appears to be following Intel's specifications.
1. What is the main issue with running Intel 14900K CPUs in Minecraft servers?
The main issue with running Intel 14900K CPUs in Minecraft servers is the high failure rate, with 30% of the CPUs failing within 1-2 months when running at 5.7 GHz. This rapid degradation is attributed to the single-threaded and memory-bound nature of Minecraft servers, which puts significant stress on the CPUs.
2. How has the data center mitigated the high failure rate of the 14900K CPUs?
The data center has mitigated the high failure rate of the 14900K CPUs by disabling the Thermal Velocity Boost feature on all the CPUs running the Minecraft servers. This has reduced the failure rate to under 5% over longer periods of time (3-4 months).
3. Why has the data center stopped offering new contracts for 14900K-based servers?
Based on the context provided, the data center has stopped offering new contracts for 14900K-based servers for a few key reasons:
The 14900K CPUs were failing at an extremely high rate on the Minecraft servers - the failure rate was around 30% within 1-2 months. 2. The maintenance and replacement costs were becoming very high, as a technician had to physically go into the data center, pull out the blade, and replace the failed CPU every time.
The data center no longer has replacement 14900K CPUs available, as they have stopped offering these servers. The person leasing the 14900K-based servers now doesn't have a way to get replacement CPUs.4. The high failure rate and maintenance costs made the 14900K-based servers an unsustainable offering for the data center. They have decided to stop providing new contracts for these servers.
In summary, the combination of extremely high failure rates, high maintenance costs, and lack of replacement CPUs led the data center to discontinue offering new 14900K-based server contracts.
4. What power and current settings are being used on the Super Micro server board running the 14900K?
Based on the context provided, here are the key power and current settings being used on the Super Micro server board running the Intel 14900K CPU:
Power Limits: - PL1 and PL2 are both set to 253W, which is the Intel specification for the 14900K. - There is no mention of a higher PL4 power limit, which is sometimes seen on gaming motherboards.
Current Limits: - The motherboard has a 200A current limit, which is the maximum current the VRM can handle. - The ICC Max (CPU current limit) is set to the standard range of up to 512A.
Load Line Calibration: - The AC and DC Load Line settings are both set to 1.1 mOhms, which is the Intel specification. - This leads to very high voltages being applied to the CPU.4. Memory Configuration:
The servers are running 128GB of low-profile DDR5-3600 memory, which is the Intel specification for 13th/14th gen CPUs. - They are not running higher memory speeds like DDR5-4400 or DDR5-4000.
So in summary, the Super Micro server board appears to be following the Intel specifications for power, current, and memory settings with the 14900K CPU. The high failure rates seem to be more related to the CPU's inability to handle the sustained workload of the Minecraft servers, rather than any unusual motherboard settings.
RedGamingTech is gonna be in shambles now.Oh man, we've come full circle. I might get to know what YT'ers are saying now with walls of text. An hours worth of content in about 90 seconds.
It’s Intel’s 4th attempt at getting the 1st attempt right.This is the first attempt!
Yep, mostly ignore techtubers as you can't skim read so AI auto summary is great. YouTube media stars cannot be happy though!Oh man, we've come full circle. I might get to know what YT'ers are saying now with walls of text. An hours worth of content in about 90 seconds.