Are they discontinuing it cause of the issues going on or is it end of cycle type thing?
Yeah, I actually read it that way at first, that all K model RPL CPUs were being discontinued. Mostly because I just glanced at it between doing other things, but then realized it was only 13th gen after looking at it again. I’m sure there will be many out there though that take this the wrong way.I still think they let a lot of the wrong people go during those mass layoffs. The timing on this announcement could not be worse. There shouldn't even have been room for speculation the 2 events are linked. But here we are.
The doc, with his dry English humor, says we need to shout loudly at the board makers or they won't hear us way over there in Taiwan. I suspect there will be class action lawsuits before this is over. When experts like the doc point the finger watch out.
But it does raise a question: shouldn't Intel have built-in safeguards in their expensive CPUs to prevent degradation? They should know from their extensive testing what the practical limits are for each of their binned silicon dies. Just start throttling the CPU if those limits are exceeded and the temperature goes over the safe limit. Maybe they don't have a temperature sensor on their IMC?The doc, with his dry English humor, says we need to shout loudly at the board makers or they won't hear us way over there in Taiwan. I suspect there will be class action lawsuits before this is over. When experts like the doc point the finger watch out.
They can bash your opinion, not you.I am probably going to get bashed for this, and its personal opinion only.
Intel with 12,13,14 generation did EVERYTHING to win benchmarks against AMD, too much voltage, too much heat, no protections (or way too few), too high GHZ (they got that only through too much voltage and heat). They deserve any bad press or sales hits due to this.
NOTE: I have said several times, I am waiting for them to come out with a product to compete with AMD, otherwise AMD will be the future Intel, resting on their laurels. And when I say compete, I mean at all levels, power, performance, etc, not just a couple of benchmarks like the 14th generation does.
But it does raise a question: shouldn't Intel have built-in safeguards in their expensive CPUs to prevent degradation? They should know from their extensive testing what the practical limits are for each of their binned silicon dies. Just start throttling the CPU if those limits are exceeded and the temperature goes over the safe limit. Maybe they don't have a temperature sensor on their IMC?
I am speaking from personal experience. Intel processors do degrade with time (many years). The degradation is increased if you overclock or have a processor that comes heavily overclocked with high voltages from the factory. All you need to do is bump the voltage a bit ever year or two after 3 or 4 years. Not a big deal. Intel processors that run stock that are not overclocked/over volted. Those processors can run for a decade without any issues.Intel is so desperate to ensure they win the performance crown over AMD they will do anything. And sometimes thats not even enough. They do not care that their chips degrade and iwll deny. I smell class action lawsuit coming in a few years due to degradation on Intel CPUs. Kind of like how Intel had them with the horrible IPC of Williamate Pentium 4 being solid despite so much higher clocks and performing worse than high end P3s and was a piece of crap space heater. Then AMD had them with the Bulldozer chips.
Though intel will face lawsuits for different reasons. Degradation and lying about longevity for the Raptor Lake CPUs. Motherboard makers may face them to.
Reminds you what... of the days of the Pentium /// 1.0 Ghz CPU? That was later recalled?Intel with 12,13,14 generation did EVERYTHING to win benchmarks against AMD, too much voltage, too much heat, no protections (or way too few), too high GHZ (they got that only through too much voltage and heat). They deserve any bad press or sales hits due to this.
AMD hit it before them so they had to push theirs over the limit: https://www.itprotoday.com/windows-78/cpu-embarrassment-intel-recalls-pentium-iii-113ghzReminds you what... of the days of the Pentium /// 1.0 Ghz CPU? That was later recalled?
I know what the contact frames are, I'm asking about the issue with contact frames and GN. AFAIK they covered both the Thermal Grizzly and Thermalright ones: mounting procedures, pressure tests, thermal results. They also explained some of the caveats.
So where is the "it's the customers fault" part?
But why should they have to ? Factory socket/cpu should not be bending.Bendgate could also be a good reason for the 14th gen degradation issues. Maybe the ones experiencing the problems aren't using the contact frame?
But why should they have to ? Factory socket/cpu should not be bending.
Our internal data show that the IHS on 12th Gen desktop processors may have slight deflection after installation in the socket. Such minor deflection is expected and does not cause the processor to run outside of specifications.
No matter what Intel says, I say that is bad engineering, and personally I think they are trying to cover their hiney.Intel Comments On Alder Lake's Warping and Bending Issues, Mods Void Warranty
"Nothing to see here, folks"www.tomshardware.com
Intel themselves admit that there is a "minor" deflection which means the heatsink base may not make full contact with the CPU heatspreader surface. As long as the CPU isn't hitting 105C, Intel considers it to be running within spec!
I am speaking from personal experience. Intel processors do degrade with time (many years). The degradation is increased if you overclock or have a processor that comes heavily overclocked with high voltages from the factory. All you need to do is bump the voltage a bit ever year or two after 3 or 4 years. Not a big deal. Intel processors that run stock that are not overclocked/over volted. Those processors can run for a decade without any issues.
Raptor Lake processors are new. There is no way the silicon has degraded within a year or less. All silicon degrades over time.
So all this happened and you didn't bother to check whether PL1/2, IccMax and AC/DC load line limits were being enforced in the bios? And you are anecdotally concluding that Raptor Lake is inherently less reliable?Go look at the results on overclock.net for 13th and 14th Gen. Some have degraded CPUs in just a few hour with 300W + power draw. These chips are fraghile and fast degradation is very real.
Just regular use on a 13th Gen 13900K I had that was super stable for 3 weeks last Summer and a max temp of 90C and e-cores disabled clocked manually 5.4GHz and ring 4.8GHz. It passed every stress test eaisly and multiple times did TLOU Shader compilation no errors. Then 3 weeks later on a clean WIN install a WHEA during TLOU Shader compilation. I sold chip after that.
I decided to give 14th Gen a chance as seen below
And a I had a 14700K I mentioned in another thread that was perfectly stable and passed all tough stress tests with flying colors with a mild .05 undervolt and all other settings at auto and only HT off and Intel limits enforced. Then Cinebench R23 application error was last straw.
I have never seen that kind of instability with Zen 4. If it passed all synthetic stress tests including all P95, all OCCT, all Y Cruncher for hours with CO, it is perfectly stable real world use and no WHEAs. Cannot say same for Intel Raptor Lake which means its degrading fast.
Nevermind the DDR5 IMC on Intel Raptor Lake is inconsistent and random. You need 2 DIMM board and nothing from Asus please to get platinum stability with 6000+ XMP DDR5. I have seen XMP on 4 DIMM boards with Raptor Lake at 6000+ throw errors in OCCT and its not good.
AMD Zen 4 just works out of the box much better. Likewise Intel 14nm, high end parts in Comet Lake so much more reliable and stable as well.
Just my experience no fanboy preference towards one or the other.
I hope and believe Intel Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake and their 20A process node and/or TSMC or whatever its going to be on will be much better.
You have a laptop chip that can't be pushed beyond limits so it's running great for you and also 11th gen at that. However, I have a 12700K and I can tell you that it's not a "fun" chip to have. It was really easy to heat it up to the point where I smelled burning metal. And the IMC was crap (granted I tried to use non-XMP RAM with it) but the manual overclock on the RAM should've gotten me at least up to DDR5-5600 (the kit's rated speed). Instead, all I could manage was DDR5-4600. Of course, mine is a used chip so who knows what kind of torture it went through before being sold to me. But I didn't notice any other crashing or worrying behavior with it during the brief time I used it. I haven't had a reason to use that system so it's laying dormant for the moment.And you are anecdotally concluding that Raptor Lake is inherently less reliable?
If motherboard makers would stop pushing the chips beyond specs, it probably would not be an issue.So all this happened and you didn't bother to check whether PL1/2, IccMax and AC/DC load line limits were being enforced in the bios? And you are anecdotally concluding that Raptor Lake is inherently less reliable?
Yes. That is exactly what this is about.If motherboard makers would stop pushing the chips beyond specs, it probably would not be an issue.
Yes or no?
Why should he check any of those things? If a product is unstable @ factory settings then it's faulty and not fit for purpose.So all this happened and you didn't bother to check whether PL1/2, IccMax and AC/DC load line limits were being enforced in the bios?
Based on Wolverine's descriptions, in the case of 13900K a thorough check was in order since the aim was overclocking the chip with e-cores disabled. In the case of the 14700K, again based on description of events, no check was needed.Why should he check any of those things? If a product is unstable @ factory settings then it's faulty and not fit for purpose.
Given the history of Z series boards applying aggressive settings since the days of Coffee Lake, regardless of vendor, I'd say that a thorough check was in order in any case.Based on Wolverine's descriptions, in the case of 13900K a thorough check was in order since the aim was overclocking the chip with e-cores disabled. In the case of the 14700K, again based on description of events, no check was needed.