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

91–100 of 216 posts

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

#91

Post by Dylan16807 »

giantg2 wrote: post #60
tux3 wrote: post #4

Remains to be seen how the microcode patch affects performance, and how these CPUs that have been affected by over-voltage to the point of instability will have aged in 6 months, or a few years from now. More voltage generally improves stability, because there is more slack to close timing. Instability with high voltage suggests dangerous levels. A software patch can lower the voltage from this point on, but it can't…

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 think those exist.)

> Hard to compare that to a 12 core 3D cached Ryzen with even higher clock...

Only half of those cores properly get the advantage of the 3D cache. And I doubt those cores have a higher clock.

AMD's doing quite well but I think you're exaggerating a good bit.

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

#93

Post by johnklos »

PedroBatista wrote: post #21

Good for Intel to finally "figure it out" but I'm not 100% sure microcode is 100% of the problem. As in everything complex enough, the "problem" can actually be many compounded problems, MB vendors "special" tune comes to mind. But this is already a mess very hard to clean since I feel many of these CPUs will die in an year or 2 because of these problems today but by then nobody will remember this and an RMA will be…

You're right - at least partly. If the issue is that Intel was too aggressive with voltages, they can use microcode updates as 1) an excuse to rejigger the power levels and voltages the BIOS uses as part of the update, and 2) they can have the processor itself be more conservative with the voltages and clocking it calculates itself.

Anything Intel announces, in my experience, is half true, so I'm interested to see what's actually true and what Intel will just forget to mention or will outright hide.

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

#94

Post by ComputerGuru »

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…

> If you have a program that can use more than 8 cores, then that 8P+12E CPU should approach a 14P CPU in speed

Only if you use work stealing queues or (this is ridiculously unlikely) run multithreaded algorithms that are aware of the different performance and split the work unevenly to compensate.

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

#95

Post by thangngoc89 »

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 guess you’re lucky. I own 2 machines for small scale CNN training, one 13900k and one 14900k. I have to throttle the CPU performances to 90% for stable running. This cost me about 1 hour / 100 hours of training.

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

#96

Post by Dylan16807 »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #94
Dylan16807 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If you have a program that can use more than 8 cores, then that 8P+12E CPU should approach a 14P CPU in speed Only if you use work stealing queues or (this is ridiculously unlikely) run multithreaded algorithms that are aware of the different performance and split the work unevenly to compensate.

Or if you use a single queue... which I would expect to be the default.

Blindly dividing work units across cores sounds like a terrible strategy for a general program that's sharing those cores with who-knows-what.

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

#97

Post by Dylan16807 »

akira2501 wrote: post #69
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…

> so few performance cores and so many efficiency cores I was baffled by this too but what they don't make clear is the performance cores have hyperthreading the efficiency cores do not. So what they call 2P+4E actually becomes an 8 core system as far as something like /proc/cpuinfo is concerned. They're also the same architecture so code compiled for a particular architecture will run on either core set and can be m…

> They're also the same architecture so code compiled for a particular architecture will run on either core set and can be moved from one to the other as the scheduler dictates.

I don't know if that has done more good than harm, since they ripped AVX-512 out for multiple generations to ensure parity.

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

#98

Post by [deleted] »

HeliumHydride wrote: post #61

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/theslowwinte... "Unfortunately for John, the branches made a pact with Satan and quantum mechanics [...] In exchange for their last remaining bits of entropy, the branches cast evil spells on future genera- tions of processors. Those evil spells had names like “scaling- induced voltage leaks” and “increasing levels of waste heat” [...] the branches, those vanquished foe…

[deleted]

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

#99

Post by whalesalad »

thangngoc89 wrote: post #95
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 guess you’re lucky. I own 2 machines for small scale CNN training, one 13900k and one 14900k. I have to throttle the CPU performances to 90% for stable running. This cost me about 1 hour / 100 hours of training.

Are you using any motherboard overclocking stuff? A lot of mobo’s are pushing these chips pretty hard right out of the box.

I have mine at a factory setting that Intel would suggest, not the asus multi core enhancement crap. noctua dh15 cooler. It’s really been a stable setup.

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

#100

Post by phire »

I find it hard to believe that it actually is a microcode issue.

Mostly because Intel has way too much motivation to pass it off as a microcode issue, as they can fix a microcode issue for free, by pushing out a patch. If it's an actual hardware issue, then Intel will be forced to actually recall all the faulty CPUs, which could cost them billions.

The other reason, is that it took them way too long to give details. If it's as simple as a buggy microcode requesting an out-of-spec voltage from the motherboard, they should have been able to diagnose the problem extremely quickly and fix it in just a few weeks. They would have detected the issue as soon as they put voltage logging on the motherboard's VRM. And according to some sources, Intel have apparently been shipping non-faulty CPUs for months now (since April, from memory), and those don't have an updated microcode.

This long delay and silence feels like they spent months of R&D trying to create a workaround, create a new voltage spec to provide the lowest voltage possible. Low enough to work around a hardware fault on as many units as possible, without too large of a performance regression, or creating new errors on other CPUs because of undervolting.

I suspect that this microcode update will only "fix" the crashes for some CPUs. My prediction is that in another month Intel will claim there are actually two completely independent issues, and reluctantly issue a recall for anything not fixed by the microcode.

Post reply on HN