Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

July 2024 Update on Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th/14th Gen Desktop CPUs

community.intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 216 posts

Re: July 2024 Update on Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th/14th Gen Desktop CPUs

#111

Post by Dylan16807 »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #110
Dylan16807 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment chain is talking about the oxidation in particular, and specifically the situation where the oxidation is not the cause of the instability in the title. That's the only way they "identified & addressed the issue but didn’t issue a recall". Do you have a reason to think the oxidation is the cause of your problems? Did you not read my first post trying to clarify the two separate issues? Am I misunderstand…

Oxidisation in the context of CPU fabrication sounds pretty bad, I find it hard to believe it would have no impact on CPU stability regardless of what Intels PR team to say while minimizing any actual impacts caused. Edit: it sounds like intel have been aware of stability issues for some time and have said nothing, I’m not sure we have any reason to trust anything they say moving forward, relating to oxidisation or a…

Well they didn't notice it for a good while, so it's really hard to say how much impact it had.

And at a certain point if you barely believe anything they say, then you shouldn't be using their statement to get mad about. The complaint you're making depends on very particular parts of their statement being true but other very particular parts being not true. I don't think we have the evidence to do that right now.

Re: July 2024 Update on Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th/14th Gen Desktop CPUs

#112

Post by giantg2 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #91
giantg2 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was recently looking at building and buying a couple systems. I've always liked Intel. I went AMD this time. It seemed like the base frequencies vs boost frequencies were much farther apart on Intel than with most of the AMDs. This was especially true on the laptops were cooling is a larger concern. So I suspect they were pushing limits. Also, the performance core vs efficiency core stuff seemed kind of gimmicky wi…

> Like look at this 20 core processor! Oh wait, it's really an 8 core when it comes to performance. The E cores are about half as fast as the P cores depending on use case, at about 30% of the size. If you have a program that can use more than 8 cores, then that 8P+12E CPU should approach a 14P CPU in speed. (And if it can't use more than 8 cores then P versus E doesn't matter.) (Or if you meant 4P+16E then I don't t…

Yeah, the 20 core Intels are benchmarking about the same as the 12 core AMD X3Ds. But many people just see 20>12. Either one is more than fine for most people.

"Oh wait, it's really an 8 core when it comes to performance [cores]". So yes, should not be an 8 core all together, but like you said about 14 cores, or 12 with the 3D cache.

"And I doubt those cores have a higher clock."

I'm not sure what we're comparing them to. They should be capable of higher clock than the E cores. I thought all the AMD cores had the ability to hit the max frequency (but not necessarily at the same time). And some of the cores might not be able to take advantage of the 3D cache, but that doesn't limit their frequency, from my understanding.

Re: July 2024 Update on Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th/14th Gen Desktop CPUs

#114

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #111
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oxidisation in the context of CPU fabrication sounds pretty bad, I find it hard to believe it would have no impact on CPU stability regardless of what Intels PR team to say while minimizing any actual impacts caused. Edit: it sounds like intel have been aware of stability issues for some time and have said nothing, I’m not sure we have any reason to trust anything they say moving forward, relating to oxidisation or a…

Well they didn't notice it for a good while, so it's really hard to say how much impact it had. And at a certain point if you barely believe anything they say, then you shouldn't be using their statement to get mad about. The complaint you're making depends on very particular parts of their statement being true but other very particular parts being not true. I don't think we have the evidence to do that right now.

> Well they didn't notice it for a good while, so it's really hard to say how much impact it had.

That negates any arguments you had related to failure rates.

> The complaint you're making depends on very particular parts of their statement being true but other very particular parts being not true

Er, I’m not even sure how to respond to this. GamersNexus has indicated they know about the oxidisation issue, intel *subsequently* confirm it was known internally but no public statement was made until now. I’m not unreasonably cherry picking parts of their statement and then drawing unreasonable conclusions. Intel have very clearly demonstrated they would have preferred to not disclose an issue in fabrication processes which very probably caused defective CPUs, they have demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour related to this entire thing (L1techs and GN are breaking the defective cpu story following leaks from major intel clients who have indicated that intel is basically refusing to cooperate).

Intel has known about these issues for some time and said nothing. They have cost organisations and individuals time and money. Nothing they say now can be trusted unless it involves them admitting fault.

Re: July 2024 Update on Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th/14th Gen Desktop CPUs

#115

Post by J_Shelby_J »

salamo wrote: post #108

Is there any info on how to diagnose this problem? Having just put together a computer with the 14900KF, I really don't want to swap it out if not necessary.

OCCP burn in test with AVX and XMP disabled.

Tbh, XMP is probably the cause of most modern crashes on gaming rigs. It does not guarantee stability. After finding a stable cpu frequency, enable xmp and roll back the memory frequency until you have no errors in occp. The whole thing can be done in 20 minutes and your machine will have 24/7/365 uptime.

Re: July 2024 Update on Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th/14th Gen Desktop CPUs

#116

Post by J_Shelby_J »

whalesalad wrote: post #92

If I didn’t just recently invest in 128gb of DDR4 I’d jump ship to AMD/AM5. My 13900k has been (knock on wood) solid though - with 24/7 uptime since July 2023.

I evaluated ddr4 vs ddr5 a year ago, and it wasn’t worth it. Chasing FPS and the cost to hit the same speed in ddr5 was just too high, and I’m glad I did. I’m on a 13700k and I’m also very stable. However, with the stock XMP profile for my ram I was very much not stable and getting errors and bsods within minutes on an occp burn in test. All I had to do was roll back the memory clock speed a few hundred mhz.

Re: July 2024 Update on Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th/14th Gen Desktop CPUs

#117

Post by tankenmate »

zenonu wrote: post #80
tpurves wrote: post #67

I think it's telling that they are delaying the microcode patch until after all the reviewers publish their Zen5 reviews and the comparisons of those chips against current Raptorlake performance.

Why even publish a comparison? Raptor Lake processors aren't a functioning product to benchmark against.

Because if publishers don't publish then they don't make money.

Re: July 2024 Update on Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th/14th Gen Desktop CPUs

#118

Post by mjevans »

jpk wrote: post #82
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #19

After watching https://youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw and some related content, I personally don't believe it's an issue fixable with microcode. I guess we'll see.

Because HN doesn't provide link previews, I'd recommend adding some information about the content to your comment. Otherwise we have to click through to YouTube for the comment to make any sense. That said, the video is the GamersNexus one where they talk about an unverified claim that this is a fabrication process issue caused by oxidation between atomic deposition layers. If that's the case, then yeah, microcode ca…

Hopefully Intel ships them, and allows them to, test and publish benchmarks with the current pre-release microcode revision for review comparison.

Re: July 2024 Update on Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th/14th Gen Desktop CPUs

#119

Post by AnthonyMouse »

zenonu wrote: post #80
tpurves wrote: post #67

I think it's telling that they are delaying the microcode patch until after all the reviewers publish their Zen5 reviews and the comparisons of those chips against current Raptorlake performance.

Why even publish a comparison? Raptor Lake processors aren't a functioning product to benchmark against.

Because the benchmarks will still exist on the sites after the microcode is released and a lot of the sites won't bother to go back and update them with the accurate performance level.

Re: July 2024 Update on Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th/14th Gen Desktop CPUs

#120

Post by langsoul-com »

brynet wrote: post #14

Curious why Intel announced this on their community forums, rather than somewhere more official.

Note how they mentioned its still going to be tested with various partners before released.

Ie we think this might solve it, but if it doesn't we can roll back with the least amount of PR attention.

Post reply on HN