The engineers at Intel had a CEO problem. The CEO would not invest a competitive fab process. To get Intel’s fab process to work at higher frequencies for their performance cores, they would allow a short time boost and a thermal velocity boost. These “boosts” frequencies were limited by a 100 C temperature limit. However there is a delay in sensing the temperature. Repeated exposure these delays leads to thermal damage (migration). There was a significant boost in performance between the 12 and 13 gen high end Intel CPUs because of a more aggressive implementation of this strategy. Gamers would be likely to use thermal velocity boost more often and with great benefit because of the interment loading during game play. The thermal velocity boost can kill the CPU. Almost everyone uses the extreme memory profile (XMP) and Intel don’t have to give out new CPUs to those that do. I can report my experience, with a sample size of two, 13900k CPUs systems that I built for an AI programmer to be used to test code for both AI learning and inference. The code was initially tested using the CPU, while the test using large data bases used 4090 GPUs. Both systems used 2 sticks of 32GB 6400 MHz ram running at 6000 MHz. Two computers were used for reliability so that a failure of one would only cause a delay of a few hours. The thermal solution was tested using Cinebench R23 for the CPU while Furmark ran on the GPU. The goal was to get the highest Cinebench score while maintaining a CPU temperature in the low 80s C. This would allow higher ambient temperatures and dust accumulation. The Cinebench R23 multi score just over 38,000. Then short time and thermal velocity boosts were disabled. Again frequencies were adjusted to maximize Cinebench scores. These result were guarded by current and power maximums. The CPU’s package temperature was 82 C with a Cinebench R23 multi score just over 40,000. Why could I get higher Cinebench scores with velocity boost disabled? I do not know. I suspect that Intel uses thread swapping to a cooler core when the thread has a given temperature difference with a cooler core. This would relieve the stress that would happen if the thread was not swapped and magnificent heat only came from one part of the CPU. I think that velocity boost increases thread swapping. Thread swapping takes time away from useful Cinebench operations. You sample size of one and my sample size of two are both significantly meaningless.
@@dyson9422 While using TVB, did you notice higher-than-usual voltages and higher clocks due to the chip attempting to boost further? The 13900K does experience two-cores boosts, but they don’t seem to operate during all-core workloads. The 13900K has an all-core target of 5.5. In your testing did you ever observe it attempting higher due to TVB? I’ve tested around 25 Intel 10nm chips. 2X13900Ks 1X13700K 5X12900K/KFs were my own, and the other numerous chips belonged to friends and other individuals whose PCs I was able to conduct testing on. I’m just mentioning this so you know it’s not just a single chip I’ve based my deductions on.
could also simply caused by thermal buffer eaten faster with a very high short power limit, by running at lower power and thus thermal resistance it actually perform better in the longer run
@@dyson9422 higher scores with TVB disabled - that is very simple. Disabling TVB is actually botched. It should disallow highest frequencies at any temperature not at t>70°C, but instead it allows highest frequencies at all temperatures.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 TVB’s options don’t reflect on every board, but on ASUS TVB has modes that allow extending turbo at the same voltage or targeting an all-core (boost until target). As far as I have observed and understand, TVB does not affect the all-core of the CPU at stock. It just causes that 2-core max boost thing that we all see.
@@dainluke > It just causes that 2-core max boost thing that we all see You mean the 2 core boost to p-cores that the Intel designers warned against going back to 12th gen because it was too much for the ICC and Ringbus to handle? That one? Fucking amateur bro. I called you a midwit before. I take that back. You can't even touch triple digits, 100%.
Thank goodness there’s still people like you that still want to use Intel. After watching Intel trying to skirt around the issue and how they treated customers, I will never give them any of my money.
@@Kapono5150 Fair enough. It’s not a great situation, but AMD dealt with something very similar last year. NVIDIA’s 4090 and 12VHPWR debacle also cost a lot of people money. That doesn’t even consider all those who didn’t know that GPU brackets were absolutely mandatory and who suffered PCB cracks. At the end of the day, these are companies selling cheaply made hardware that undergoes limited testing due to time constraints. Shit happens.
@@dainluke I agree with the 16 pin bc I myself don’t trust that connection. With AMD, I’m assuming the high SOC voltage killing 7800X3D’s is what you’re talking about.
I was an early AM4 adopter (B350). With all the stuff that didn't EVER work (USB disconnects and reconnects, just do a google!) on that chipset and then the way they refused, for no technical reason, to allow B350 boards to update to Ryzen 5000 - then only to backpedal due to community outrage. Thinking that either company is shadier than the other is stupidity - and refusing EVER to give them any money is asinine I am sorry.
Intel themself say the whole problem is within the parts that steer the clocks of the cpu. Its very sensitive to high voltages and temperatures. And damages to those circuits will lead to instability. Also computers used for cryptomining or other high loads were way less affected by this, than gaming pc's. There was also more problems for people using watercooling. From my understanding, it could be like this, in games the cpu sometimes can idle waiting for something, and at the same time the cpu see that its got low temps so it thinks it can boost and requests more voltages and the clock part gets damaged. But if you are on fan cooling, the cpu will probably not want to try to boost so it will not get damaged.
Recent amd 5700x3d user, but man, i found 13950HX Q1LP (aka 13900k with soldered LGA1700 adapter) for 190$ (From level1tech) channel video im now avid intel user and my brother also gets Inteled xD Running P@5.6 E@4.3 DDR4@16gb 4100 flats 15, gear 1 Asrock Z690 Extreme(ddr4) 0x12b latest bios AC 0.10, offset -30, LLC1, Cheapest 360 water for 40$ btw i found that on fixed mode vCore isn't dropping to power save 0.8v ish, so offset is better imo Probably will crash in benches, but in games which i play it is so good Friendship ended with amd, now intel mobile chips my new best friend Ordered MSI Z790i edge hope it could achive 2x16gb DDR-5 7000+ speeds, that would be beast price/perf machine
I bought my 13900kf, and it was pre-order, and I've run it fully unlocked. All limits removed and overclocked it to the max the motherboards would allow(z690 Tomahalk & z790 Apex encore) I've had zero problems, and I've only ever used the very old bios (Z790 Apex Encore Bios Version 0506). I've always scored 40/43k cinebench r23. Basically, I pushed it hard for the whole 2 years of ownership and never had a problem. This video confirms my last upload of what I've been saying. Thanks for another great video bro 👍
>because I wasn't sold a defective Oxidized chip, they don't exist and Intel is the best You've got an extra chromosome and life is difficult for you - I am sorry.
@@toonnut1 When you RMA your chip, tell Jose F at Intel Support I said hi and tell him I'm sorry that his entire team got laid off. Maybe if Intel had just done the recall their team wouldn't have had to process over 300,000 RMAs while getting laid off.... oh well.
It's widely known that Intel is recently regularly running out of 13900K/KS/KF and 14900K/KS/KF, even the 14700K for RMAs. The chips are degrading even on safe settings due to idle voltage hiking, which is why companies that use them in server environments are having them fail in the thousands since they are powered up and idling a lot of the time. Which they are addressing/addressed with recent microcode update of 0x12b.
@@XenonG They are offering refunds as well, even to the biggest dickheads imaginable, so I’m sure that anyone who communicates with respect will be given a refund. A large batch of 14th Gen silicon and the later batches of 13th Gen silicon, according to Intel, exhibits a stronger tolerance to voltage. The early release BIOSs of ASUS boards and those of other vendors used shallow AC_LL values which is why 14900K chips often crashed under load (insufficient load voltage). Although some chips probably do have issues degrading due to idle voltages under the right circumstances, every case of electromigration that I’ve come across stems from the individual using a load voltage that was too high alongside a high current draw load. An individual in the comments was kind enough to admit that he’d been running Blender and UE5 renders on his chip without making any adjustments to the then-stock BIOS settings (with MCE enabled).
@@dainlukeno. Shallow AC_LL is fine. It just needs matching VRM load line (like level "turbo") and should get matching DC_LL (the same value) and CEP on. People shouldn't adjust everything to make Intel 13gen or 14gen CPU stop killing themselves. It is an Intel fault that those unsafe defaults are the defaults.
@@dainluke >without making any adjustments to the then-stock BIOS settings (with MCE enabled). I stated the exact opposite and you're just a liar - I've caught you lying about me multiple times now. That's so fucking cringe and pathetic. You make videos lying to people then when people correct you, you make comments calling them liars. That's manchild shit and you're a proven liar JUST to white knight for Intel. That's so pathetic it's hard to fathom.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 The reason I’m mentioning the shallow stock AC_LLs is because that condition counters the current theory that suggests that high idle/low load voltages are solely responsible for degrading Intel chips. I’m not saying that shallow AC_LL isn’t fine and I’m not even referring to the DC_LL/LLC thing regarding accurate sensors - I know. What I’m trying to say is that the fact that there were very shallow AC_LLs makes me question the current rhetoric of how people believe 13th Gen chips degraded.
You forget vintage computing. In 15 years its value should bottom out. In 30 to 40 years working it should be going for similar price to what it was brand new. A lack of surviving CPUs for vintage computing in the future is a potential problem. Assuming windows 10 gaming becomes a thing like dos and Windows xp gaming is today.
@@FPSDuLe It’s actually a default Windows 11 wallpaper. I use this theme because it cycles a few scenic pictures every 10 or 15 minutes which helps my OLED.
Don't you thing AC_LL at Intel value of 1.1mOhms and matching VRM loadline doesnt cause 13gen and 14gen CPU's to degrade? Of course your's doesn't have noticeable degradation as it has sensible AC_LL together with matching VRM loadline and CEP on.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 AC_LL 1.1 mOhm was not the default setting until they began using it as the default setting in April because of CPUs not being able to run AC_LL at values of say 0.5, which were the standard on Z690/Z790 boards up until Intel began telling vendors they need to use 1.1. After AC_LL 1.1 mOhm was enforced, Intel realised that 14th Gen chips were probably going to be screwed because board vendors were targeting 5.7P, and they enforced necessary voltage caps on the new microcode. AC_LL 1.1 mOhm could not have been the cause of degradation initially, because literally no one was using 1.1 mOhm AC_LL until the degradation issue came to light. Flash any ASUS BIOS from 2022-2023 and tell me what the “Trained” SVID selects as an AC_LL. It’s definitely not Fail Safe.
@@dainluke AC_LL is only half of the picture. VRM load line is the outher half. If VRM load line is significantly higher then AC_LL then CPU wont be stable from not having enought voltage at high load. If BOTH of those are very low and match, then CEP (clock streching) is required for stability. If AC_LL is too high then CPU will aks for too much voltage.
@@dainluke of course initial AC_LL wasn't the dafault. Moutherboard manufacturers were silently undervolting the CPU's. Then CPU got unstable so Intel forced them into way worse: permanently degrading the CPU's. Having CEP on, very low VRM load line and very low (matching to VRM load line) AC_LL - Intel still refuses to recommend. They STILL want their AC_LL 1.1mOhm fantasyland.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 CEP wasn’t a factor on older BIOSs, which is why app errors and crashes would occur prior to any clock stretching. Every BIOS prior to March had uncapped limits which also disabled CEP. The chips were crashing because uncapped current/power combined with lack of CEP and shallow AC_LL meant that 14900K/13900K samples targeting their 5.7P/5.5P VID targets would inevitably lose stability at high temperatures running heavy loads. Intel didn’t spec the 13900K for 5.5 and they didn’t spec the 14900K for 5.7. Don’t take my word for it though - have a look at the product page. Falkentyne on OCN also brought this to our attention many times, including December of 2022 when Ichirou degraded ten of his 13900K test samples. It was then that we learnt that the 5.5P 13900K VID point, and consequently the 5.7P 14900K VID point, are actually not at all safe for daily use especially when the current and power limits are maxed. All vendors used reasonable LLC settings. ASUS auto used to be mode 3 at stock, and Gigabyte and other vendors used similar conservative automatic VRM LLC values. On older BIOSs, AC_LL was always shallow. Again, don’t take my word for it. In BZ’s video from a few months ago, he investigated Gigabyte AC_LL. Hardware Unboxed initially reported that some boards were not capable of sustaining their 14900K sample’s 5.7P target, and that was because some of their test boards had AC_LLs that were far too low.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 I agree with you that 1.1 mOhm is a problem. Intel tried to fix the initial crashing by forcing vendors to use 1.1 (with capped power limits), but then began to realise that their 14th Gen samples - and some 13th Gen samples in some scenarios - would draw too much voltage and then began addressing that with future patches. Everyone should definitely update to 0x12B, especially on 14th Gen and especially if they are not planning to manually undervolt. That’s something I’m not arguing against at all.
" The reason why it's absurd Intel chips are failing is because My chip hasn't started failing." Is the most ignorant form of confirmation biased I've ever heard in my life, even Intel has confirmed four root causes of chip degradation in 13th, 14th CPUs that requires a BIOS update to mitigate, and Intel has confirmed that chips that are already experiencing instability due to degradation are considered destroyed and require a replacement. Take care mate, you are inhaling dangerous amounts of copium.
@@LeeSeanSullivan They don't need to know anything about chips, they literally just told you INTEL THEMSELVES are admitting fault. Literally just look up "intel root causes 13th and 14th gen" and the first link is an official Intel post about the issues. Don't be an idiot.
@@juno1597 That’s not the point I was making, and I don’t think we’re on the same wavelength. I don’t think you watched the video either, because I clearly stated reasons for why chip failures can, and have, happened.
Lol what degradation mechanism causes in silicon oxidation under load? Anyone claiming that there is a "ring bus flaw" is just parroting clueless MLID comments, someone who is notorious for having a poor technical understanding.
what about intel chips doen't run some games, they just don't open, like blair witch and other titles, there is no fix, if you making a platform to game on just stay away from intel, if the memory issues or shader or volts are not issues some games just don't open on intel About degradation, why everyone is talking about it on intel side is, when you have a really small chip with small surface to dissipate the heat and it performs on 200+W, more W=more heat and there is no efficient exsisting way to dissipate a cpu with 200+W with a so small suface of dissipation contact and what will happen over time is the chip will destroy himself at much faster rate based on the simple equation of W+Heat=Degradation
The main issue is the p-cores spiking Mhz higher than the ICC and ringbus can handle. 12th gen was borderline too much, then they added even more e-cores and now you've got 2 generations of chips that WILL fail unless 1) p-cores are locked to prevent 2core boost 2) voltage stays below 1.4 and 3) the chip does not hit 90c ever (every time the chip throttles the ICC and ringbus are potentially damaged.
@@bad_emil8945 My videos are pretty long so I don’t blame you or anyone else for not always retrieving all the info I did cover your question though. For the vast majority of 14900Ks, aside from those that ended up in that weird scenario where enough Vcore was reached to experience accelerated electromigration, the reason for game crashing is having a poor chip sample that couldn’t handle the inherently shallow AC_LL set by some vendors. As mentioned before, most (practically all) of the vendors did not follow the Intel AC LL 1.1 mOhm spec for the better part of a year and a half, this included around 6 months of 14th Gen’s life. Now let’s be clear, 1.1 mOhm is freakin crap and nearly no one should be using it, but not all 14900Ks could operate at the 0.5-0.7 being used by some vendors. Now let’s be clear again, those samples are horrendous. Many samples can run under 0.5 mOhm, and hence would not suffer the app closing issue (while operating with Intel limits in place). The 14900K has a high V/F target, higher than spec in-fact. The chip targets an all-core of 5.7P whereas validation was for 5.6P, and not all 14900K samples run reliably at 5.7P. Many users were not using Intel limits, and with a 512A current limit, many chips can and will attempt to operate at the full 5.7P in all-core core loads. Along with the issue with AC_LL I just mentioned, you can imagine why some chips are prone to crashing in some use cases even when voltage spikes that cause fringe cases of rapid degradation are kept at bay. The 13900K is a bit more tricky. Unfortunately, 13900K chips are not as resilient as 14900K chips, and while targeting 5.5P in some use cases, it is surprisingly easy for a 13900K to step over its max Vcore at a given Amperage (1520 - (1.1 * A) = Vmax (mV)). If you plug in low loads of 50-100A, loads that compare to doing light work on one’s PC, one ends up with fairly high Vmax values that are safe to operate at. However, when one plugs in a load of 250A-300A, representative of a heavy AVX shader compilation load, or some type of heavy SSE/AVX stress test or benchmark, the Vmax is surprisingly unforgiving. One can end up with values of 1.2-1.25, and many 13900Ks - when unrestricted - will absolutely attempt to use more Vcore than that to reach its 5.5P V/F target. For that reason, it’s actually surprisingly easy to degrade a 13900K with stock settings if the chip is operated with improper settings, which happened in many cases.
@@jabronilifestyle The voltage point I definitely agree with, because being above 1.4V on many chips is quite risky. However, I don’t really understand how two cores boosting, or the CPU reaching Tj Max would be an issue. I’d definitely agree that operating at 100c for extended periods isn’t good, and I’d recommend against allowing that to happen, but why is 90c okay, where 95c or stock (100c) isn’t?
@@dainluke > I don’t really understand how two cores boosting The ICC/Ringbus can't sustain the spike in Mhz and that's per the Intel design team for 12th gen, who was not involved in the rushed 13th/14th gen design. Intel employees themselves warned us during 12th gen that the ICC/Ringbus was beyond maxed already. If you want to ignore them, go for it. I'm not gonna argue with you.
@@jabronilifestyle The Raptor Lake ring boost occurs at incredibly low current draw and doesn’t even occur during game. Assuming that the voltage is kept down, are you suggesting that the ring boosting from 4.5 to 4.9 is the root cause of degradation?
Your chip is gonna die and you're gonna have to make a video down the road titled "My 13900k is crashing... why??". Then someone like me is gonna have to tell you that your ICC/Ringbus is fried.
@@jabronilifestyle I’ve owned multiple Raptor Lake chips and that’s literally never happened before. My chip is operating within spec because I know how to set safe parameters.
@@dainluke Running Blender and Unreal Engine whilst my p-cores were locked and I had a slight undervolt using a custom watercooled loop with an Optimus Signature V2 block and more rads than you can shake a stick at.
Well that's time I'm never getting back. Look, if it wasn't for the title I wouldn't even give you a hard time but you're simply out of your depth here. The actual issues and how Intel has skirted around them has been widely discussed. I don't know if you're simply trying to cope or just haven't realized the extent of the problem but your anecdotal experience is meaningless, as is your understanding of it.
@@dainluke Would you defend Intel without understanding the issue you're arguing against? The answer is YES. Imagine not understanding a topic and vapidly arguing against it without even offering a counter-argument. You're frying your ICC/Ringbus with 2 p-core boosting and I'm comfy knowing that 1) you didn't even know about the issue and 2) you're so butthurt about being told about the issue that you deny it is an issue without having any knowledge of the issue You're so silly.
@@jabronilifestyle When have I ever contested you on whether the ringbus is more sensitive than the IA cores themselves? When have I ever contested you on that sufficient voltages under sufficient conditions will cause degradation? The reason I am not concerned about 2-core boosts or the ringbus is because so long as the core/cache rail is kept in check, most decent chip samples will be just fine. Aside from my own CPU samples, I’ve tested others too. Two cases where individuals came to me with faulty CPUs, their BIOSs were old and they’d been using uncapped limits for months on end. It could be that high voltage from 2-core boosts degraded their ring silicon, or it could be that they’d been running at 300W with 1.25-1.3V at load. The 5.7P all-core target was always too high and if you look at the Intel spec page, they never intended the 14900K to be a 5.7P part. The same thing goes for the 13900K - it was never meant to target 5.5P at load.
i have had 2x 13900k desktops since feb and march 2023 and never had a single problem. idk those failed chips I can only speculate had woefulyy inadequate cooling
They were oxidized as confirmed by Intel. Intel knowingly sold defective chips (why they're being sued). It's against the law to knowingly sell a defective product. The future for you - Your chip is degrading slowly and it'll eventually start showing instability issues (unless you locked p-cores, then you might be ok). Enjoy your RMA, you even get to RMA it!
@@ufopulse I think some people got unlucky with the work they were doing before they realised that they were using settings that weren’t safe, and then they suffered chip degradation. They’re all getting RMAs so I don’t even get what the issue is. It just pisses me off that there are people who think they know what they’re talking about going around trying to scare everyone into thinking that their CPUs are all screwed. I’ve heard stuff as ridiculous as people saying that our CPUs are guaranteed dead after the 5 year warranty. Shit’s freakin’ lame.
@@dainluke >It just pisses me off that there are people who think they know what they’re talking about going around trying to scare everyone into thinking that their CPUs are all screwed. The source of the information is two separate Intel designers, one was a lead for 12th gen. What's ironic is that you can't see what a hypocrite you are - you literally are the midwit that thinks they know what they're talking about only you're white knighting Intel and convincing users that their CPUs are fine when Intel's own designers disagree with you. Just be fucking wrong, it's okay SHEESH
The engineers at Intel had a CEO problem. The CEO would not invest a competitive fab process. To get Intel’s fab process to work at higher frequencies for their performance cores, they would allow a short time boost and a thermal velocity boost. These “boosts” frequencies were limited by a 100 C temperature limit. However there is a delay in sensing the temperature. Repeated exposure these delays leads to thermal damage (migration). There was a significant boost in performance between the 12 and 13 gen high end Intel CPUs because of a more aggressive implementation of this strategy.
Gamers would be likely to use thermal velocity boost more often and with great benefit because of the interment loading during game play. The thermal velocity boost can kill the CPU. Almost everyone uses the extreme memory profile (XMP) and Intel don’t have to give out new CPUs to those that do.
I can report my experience, with a sample size of two, 13900k CPUs systems that I built for an AI programmer to be used to test code for both AI learning and inference. The code was initially tested using the CPU, while the test using large data bases used 4090 GPUs. Both systems used 2 sticks of 32GB 6400 MHz ram running at 6000 MHz. Two computers were used for reliability so that a failure of one would only cause a delay of a few hours.
The thermal solution was tested using Cinebench R23 for the CPU while Furmark ran on the GPU. The goal was to get the highest Cinebench score while maintaining a CPU temperature in the low 80s C. This would allow higher ambient temperatures and dust accumulation. The Cinebench R23 multi score just over 38,000. Then short time and thermal velocity boosts were disabled. Again frequencies were adjusted to maximize Cinebench scores. These result were guarded by current and power maximums. The CPU’s package temperature was 82 C with a Cinebench R23 multi score just over 40,000.
Why could I get higher Cinebench scores with velocity boost disabled? I do not know. I suspect that Intel uses thread swapping to a cooler core when the thread has a given temperature difference with a cooler core. This would relieve the stress that would happen if the thread was not swapped and magnificent heat only came from one part of the CPU. I think that velocity boost increases thread swapping. Thread swapping takes time away from useful Cinebench operations.
You sample size of one and my sample size of two are both significantly meaningless.
@@dyson9422 While using TVB, did you notice higher-than-usual voltages and higher clocks due to the chip attempting to boost further? The 13900K does experience two-cores boosts, but they don’t seem to operate during all-core workloads. The 13900K has an all-core target of 5.5. In your testing did you ever observe it attempting higher due to TVB?
I’ve tested around 25 Intel 10nm chips. 2X13900Ks 1X13700K 5X12900K/KFs were my own, and the other numerous chips belonged to friends and other individuals whose PCs I was able to conduct testing on. I’m just mentioning this so you know it’s not just a single chip I’ve based my deductions on.
could also simply caused by thermal buffer eaten faster with a very high short power limit, by running at lower power and thus thermal resistance it actually perform better in the longer run
@@dyson9422 higher scores with TVB disabled - that is very simple.
Disabling TVB is actually botched. It should disallow highest frequencies at any temperature not at t>70°C, but instead it allows highest frequencies at all temperatures.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 TVB’s options don’t reflect on every board, but on ASUS TVB has modes that allow extending turbo at the same voltage or targeting an all-core (boost until target). As far as I have observed and understand, TVB does not affect the all-core of the CPU at stock. It just causes that 2-core max boost thing that we all see.
@@dainluke > It just causes that 2-core max boost thing that we all see
You mean the 2 core boost to p-cores that the Intel designers warned against going back to 12th gen because it was too much for the ICC and Ringbus to handle? That one? Fucking amateur bro. I called you a midwit before. I take that back. You can't even touch triple digits, 100%.
Thank goodness there’s still people like you that still want to use Intel. After watching Intel trying to skirt around the issue and how they treated customers, I will never give them any of my money.
@@Kapono5150 Fair enough. It’s not a great situation, but AMD dealt with something very similar last year. NVIDIA’s 4090 and 12VHPWR debacle also cost a lot of people money. That doesn’t even consider all those who didn’t know that GPU brackets were absolutely mandatory and who suffered PCB cracks. At the end of the day, these are companies selling cheaply made hardware that undergoes limited testing due to time constraints. Shit happens.
@@dainluke I agree with the 16 pin bc I myself don’t trust that connection. With AMD, I’m assuming the high SOC voltage killing 7800X3D’s is what you’re talking about.
@@Kapono5150 High SOC voltages were killing all sorts of chips over that 8 or 9 month period. It happens though.
I was an early AM4 adopter (B350). With all the stuff that didn't EVER work (USB disconnects and reconnects, just do a google!) on that chipset and then the way they refused, for no technical reason, to allow B350 boards to update to Ryzen 5000 - then only to backpedal due to community outrage.
Thinking that either company is shadier than the other is stupidity - and refusing EVER to give them any money is asinine I am sorry.
Intel themself say the whole problem is within the parts that steer the clocks of the cpu. Its very sensitive to high voltages and temperatures. And damages to those circuits will lead to instability. Also computers used for cryptomining or other high loads were way less affected by this, than gaming pc's. There was also more problems for people using watercooling. From my understanding, it could be like this, in games the cpu sometimes can idle waiting for something, and at the same time the cpu see that its got low temps so it thinks it can boost and requests more voltages and the clock part gets damaged. But if you are on fan cooling, the cpu will probably not want to try to boost so it will not get damaged.
Recent amd 5700x3d user, but man,
i found 13950HX Q1LP
(aka 13900k with soldered LGA1700 adapter) for 190$
(From level1tech) channel video
im now avid intel user and my brother also gets Inteled xD
Running P@5.6 E@4.3 DDR4@16gb 4100 flats 15, gear 1
Asrock Z690 Extreme(ddr4)
0x12b latest bios
AC 0.10, offset -30, LLC1,
Cheapest 360 water for 40$
btw i found that on fixed mode vCore isn't dropping to power save 0.8v ish,
so offset is better imo
Probably will crash in benches, but in games which i play it is so good
Friendship ended with amd, now intel mobile chips my new best friend
Ordered MSI Z790i edge hope it could achive 2x16gb DDR-5 7000+ speeds, that would be beast
price/perf machine
I bought my 13900kf, and it was pre-order, and I've run it fully unlocked. All limits removed and overclocked it to the max the motherboards would allow(z690 Tomahalk & z790 Apex encore) I've had zero problems, and I've only ever used the very old bios (Z790 Apex Encore Bios Version 0506). I've always scored 40/43k cinebench r23. Basically, I pushed it hard for the whole 2 years of ownership and never had a problem. This video confirms my last upload of what I've been saying. Thanks for another great video bro 👍
>because I wasn't sold a defective Oxidized chip, they don't exist and Intel is the best
You've got an extra chromosome and life is difficult for you - I am sorry.
@jabronilifestyle go cry somewhere else 😂🔔🔚
@@jabronilifestyle because my cpu was oxidised all cpu's are oxidised 😭
@@toonnut1 Imagine reinforcing my point for me and not even realizing you did so. Cuck ass fanboy man I swear.
@@toonnut1 When you RMA your chip, tell Jose F at Intel Support I said hi and tell him I'm sorry that his entire team got laid off. Maybe if Intel had just done the recall their team wouldn't have had to process over 300,000 RMAs while getting laid off.... oh well.
It's widely known that Intel is recently regularly running out of 13900K/KS/KF and 14900K/KS/KF, even the 14700K for RMAs.
The chips are degrading even on safe settings due to idle voltage hiking, which is why companies that use them in server environments are having them fail in the thousands since they are powered up and idling a lot of the time. Which they are addressing/addressed with recent microcode update of 0x12b.
@@XenonG They are offering refunds as well, even to the biggest dickheads imaginable, so I’m sure that anyone who communicates with respect will be given a refund.
A large batch of 14th Gen silicon and the later batches of 13th Gen silicon, according to Intel, exhibits a stronger tolerance to voltage. The early release BIOSs of ASUS boards and those of other vendors used shallow AC_LL values which is why 14900K chips often crashed under load (insufficient load voltage). Although some chips probably do have issues degrading due to idle voltages under the right circumstances, every case of electromigration that I’ve come across stems from the individual using a load voltage that was too high alongside a high current draw load. An individual in the comments was kind enough to admit that he’d been running Blender and UE5 renders on his chip without making any adjustments to the then-stock BIOS settings (with MCE enabled).
@@dainlukeno. Shallow AC_LL is fine. It just needs matching VRM load line (like level "turbo") and should get matching DC_LL (the same value) and CEP on.
People shouldn't adjust everything to make Intel 13gen or 14gen CPU stop killing themselves. It is an Intel fault that those unsafe defaults are the defaults.
@@dainluke >without making any adjustments to the then-stock BIOS settings (with MCE enabled).
I stated the exact opposite and you're just a liar - I've caught you lying about me multiple times now. That's so fucking cringe and pathetic. You make videos lying to people then when people correct you, you make comments calling them liars.
That's manchild shit and you're a proven liar JUST to white knight for Intel. That's so pathetic it's hard to fathom.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 The reason I’m mentioning the shallow stock AC_LLs is because that condition counters the current theory that suggests that high idle/low load voltages are solely responsible for degrading Intel chips. I’m not saying that shallow AC_LL isn’t fine and I’m not even referring to the DC_LL/LLC thing regarding accurate sensors - I know. What I’m trying to say is that the fact that there were very shallow AC_LLs makes me question the current rhetoric of how people believe 13th Gen chips degraded.
You forget vintage computing. In 15 years its value should bottom out. In 30 to 40 years working it should be going for similar price to what it was brand new.
A lack of surviving CPUs for vintage computing in the future is a potential problem. Assuming windows 10 gaming becomes a thing like dos and Windows xp gaming is today.
That's nice wallpaper 😍 can you share a link?
@@FPSDuLe It’s actually a default Windows 11 wallpaper. I use this theme because it cycles a few scenic pictures every 10 or 15 minutes which helps my OLED.
@@dainluke Ahaaa 🤦♂️🤣
I dont use W11 so i didn't know 🤦♂️
This reminds me of Commodor😂 with the Amiga Cd failure they had😂
Don't you thing AC_LL at Intel value of 1.1mOhms and matching VRM loadline doesnt cause 13gen and 14gen CPU's to degrade?
Of course your's doesn't have noticeable degradation as it has sensible AC_LL together with matching VRM loadline and CEP on.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 AC_LL 1.1 mOhm was not the default setting until they began using it as the default setting in April because of CPUs not being able to run AC_LL at values of say 0.5, which were the standard on Z690/Z790 boards up until Intel began telling vendors they need to use 1.1. After AC_LL 1.1 mOhm was enforced, Intel realised that 14th Gen chips were probably going to be screwed because board vendors were targeting 5.7P, and they enforced necessary voltage caps on the new microcode. AC_LL 1.1 mOhm could not have been the cause of degradation initially, because literally no one was using 1.1 mOhm AC_LL until the degradation issue came to light. Flash any ASUS BIOS from 2022-2023 and tell me what the “Trained” SVID selects as an AC_LL. It’s definitely not Fail Safe.
@@dainluke AC_LL is only half of the picture. VRM load line is the outher half.
If VRM load line is significantly higher then AC_LL then CPU wont be stable from not having enought voltage at high load. If BOTH of those are very low and match, then CEP (clock streching) is required for stability. If AC_LL is too high then CPU will aks for too much voltage.
@@dainluke of course initial AC_LL wasn't the dafault. Moutherboard manufacturers were silently undervolting the CPU's. Then CPU got unstable so Intel forced them into way worse: permanently degrading the CPU's.
Having CEP on, very low VRM load line and very low (matching to VRM load line) AC_LL - Intel still refuses to recommend. They STILL want their AC_LL 1.1mOhm fantasyland.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 CEP wasn’t a factor on older BIOSs, which is why app errors and crashes would occur prior to any clock stretching. Every BIOS prior to March had uncapped limits which also disabled CEP. The chips were crashing because uncapped current/power combined with lack of CEP and shallow AC_LL meant that 14900K/13900K samples targeting their 5.7P/5.5P VID targets would inevitably lose stability at high temperatures running heavy loads. Intel didn’t spec the 13900K for 5.5 and they didn’t spec the 14900K for 5.7. Don’t take my word for it though - have a look at the product page. Falkentyne on OCN also brought this to our attention many times, including December of 2022 when Ichirou degraded ten of his 13900K test samples. It was then that we learnt that the 5.5P 13900K VID point, and consequently the 5.7P 14900K VID point, are actually not at all safe for daily use especially when the current and power limits are maxed.
All vendors used reasonable LLC settings. ASUS auto used to be mode 3 at stock, and Gigabyte and other vendors used similar conservative automatic VRM LLC values. On older BIOSs, AC_LL was always shallow. Again, don’t take my word for it. In BZ’s video from a few months ago, he investigated Gigabyte AC_LL. Hardware Unboxed initially reported that some boards were not capable of sustaining their 14900K sample’s 5.7P target, and that was because some of their test boards had AC_LLs that were far too low.
@@volodumurkalunyak4651 I agree with you that 1.1 mOhm is a problem. Intel tried to fix the initial crashing by forcing vendors to use 1.1 (with capped power limits), but then began to realise that their 14th Gen samples - and some 13th Gen samples in some scenarios - would draw too much voltage and then began addressing that with future patches. Everyone should definitely update to 0x12B, especially on 14th Gen and especially if they are not planning to manually undervolt. That’s something I’m not arguing against at all.
" The reason why it's absurd Intel chips are failing is because My chip hasn't started failing." Is the most ignorant form of confirmation biased I've ever heard in my life, even Intel has confirmed four root causes of chip degradation in 13th, 14th CPUs that requires a BIOS update to mitigate, and Intel has confirmed that chips that are already experiencing instability due to degradation are considered destroyed and require a replacement.
Take care mate, you are inhaling dangerous amounts of copium.
This chap knows chips you don't know chips.
@@LeeSeanSullivan They don't need to know anything about chips, they literally just told you INTEL THEMSELVES are admitting fault. Literally just look up "intel root causes 13th and 14th gen" and the first link is an official Intel post about the issues. Don't be an idiot.
@@juno1597 That’s not the point I was making, and I don’t think we’re on the same wavelength. I don’t think you watched the video either, because I clearly stated reasons for why chip failures can, and have, happened.
@@dainluke I watched your video, that's why I'm so disappointed.
@@juno1597 What exactly are you disappointed by?
There is a known flaw in the ringbus that causes oxidation under high voltage - NOT electromigration. That's why they clamped it.
Lol what degradation mechanism causes in silicon oxidation under load? Anyone claiming that there is a "ring bus flaw" is just parroting clueless MLID comments, someone who is notorious for having a poor technical understanding.
what about intel chips doen't run some games, they just don't open, like blair witch and other titles, there is no fix, if you making a platform to game on just stay away from intel, if the memory issues or shader or volts are not issues some games just don't open on intel
About degradation, why everyone is talking about it on intel side is, when you have a really small chip with small surface to dissipate the heat and it performs on 200+W, more W=more heat and there is no efficient exsisting way to dissipate a cpu with 200+W with a so small suface of dissipation contact and what will happen over time is the chip will destroy himself at much faster rate based on the simple equation of W+Heat=Degradation
The main issue is the p-cores spiking Mhz higher than the ICC and ringbus can handle. 12th gen was borderline too much, then they added even more e-cores and now you've got 2 generations of chips that WILL fail unless 1) p-cores are locked to prevent 2core boost 2) voltage stays below 1.4 and 3) the chip does not hit 90c ever (every time the chip throttles the ICC and ringbus are potentially damaged.
@@bad_emil8945 My videos are pretty long so I don’t blame you or anyone else for not always retrieving all the info I did cover your question though. For the vast majority of 14900Ks, aside from those that ended up in that weird scenario where enough Vcore was reached to experience accelerated electromigration, the reason for game crashing is having a poor chip sample that couldn’t handle the inherently shallow AC_LL set by some vendors. As mentioned before, most (practically all) of the vendors did not follow the Intel AC LL 1.1 mOhm spec for the better part of a year and a half, this included around 6 months of 14th Gen’s life. Now let’s be clear, 1.1 mOhm is freakin crap and nearly no one should be using it, but not all 14900Ks could operate at the 0.5-0.7 being used by some vendors. Now let’s be clear again, those samples are horrendous. Many samples can run under 0.5 mOhm, and hence would not suffer the app closing issue (while operating with Intel limits in place). The 14900K has a high V/F target, higher than spec in-fact. The chip targets an all-core of 5.7P whereas validation was for 5.6P, and not all 14900K samples run reliably at 5.7P. Many users were not using Intel limits, and with a 512A current limit, many chips can and will attempt to operate at the full 5.7P in all-core core loads. Along with the issue with AC_LL I just mentioned, you can imagine why some chips are prone to crashing in some use cases even when voltage spikes that cause fringe cases of rapid degradation are kept at bay.
The 13900K is a bit more tricky. Unfortunately, 13900K chips are not as resilient as 14900K chips, and while targeting 5.5P in some use cases, it is surprisingly easy for a 13900K to step over its max Vcore at a given Amperage (1520 - (1.1 * A) = Vmax (mV)). If you plug in low loads of 50-100A, loads that compare to doing light work on one’s PC, one ends up with fairly high Vmax values that are safe to operate at. However, when one plugs in a load of 250A-300A, representative of a heavy AVX shader compilation load, or some type of heavy SSE/AVX stress test or benchmark, the Vmax is surprisingly unforgiving. One can end up with values of 1.2-1.25, and many 13900Ks - when unrestricted - will absolutely attempt to use more Vcore than that to reach its 5.5P V/F target. For that reason, it’s actually surprisingly easy to degrade a 13900K with stock settings if the chip is operated with improper settings, which happened in many cases.
@@jabronilifestyle The voltage point I definitely agree with, because being above 1.4V on many chips is quite risky. However, I don’t really understand how two cores boosting, or the CPU reaching Tj Max would be an issue. I’d definitely agree that operating at 100c for extended periods isn’t good, and I’d recommend against allowing that to happen, but why is 90c okay, where 95c or stock (100c) isn’t?
@@dainluke > I don’t really understand how two cores boosting
The ICC/Ringbus can't sustain the spike in Mhz and that's per the Intel design team for 12th gen, who was not involved in the rushed 13th/14th gen design.
Intel employees themselves warned us during 12th gen that the ICC/Ringbus was beyond maxed already. If you want to ignore them, go for it. I'm not gonna argue with you.
@@jabronilifestyle The Raptor Lake ring boost occurs at incredibly low current draw and doesn’t even occur during game. Assuming that the voltage is kept down, are you suggesting that the ring boosting from 4.5 to 4.9 is the root cause of degradation?
Your chip is gonna die and you're gonna have to make a video down the road titled "My 13900k is crashing... why??". Then someone like me is gonna have to tell you that your ICC/Ringbus is fried.
@@jabronilifestyle I’ve owned multiple Raptor Lake chips and that’s literally never happened before. My chip is operating within spec because I know how to set safe parameters.
@@dainluke enjoy the RMA and see you next RMA
@@jabronilifestyle What exactly were you doing to your chip?
@@dainluke Running Blender and Unreal Engine whilst my p-cores were locked and I had a slight undervolt using a custom watercooled loop with an Optimus Signature V2 block and more rads than you can shake a stick at.
@@dainluke buddy wants you to fail to validate his own misfortune
Well that's time I'm never getting back. Look, if it wasn't for the title I wouldn't even give you a hard time but you're simply out of your depth here. The actual issues and how Intel has skirted around them has been widely discussed. I don't know if you're simply trying to cope or just haven't realized the extent of the problem but your anecdotal experience is meaningless, as is your understanding of it.
@@JJFX- What does the term “failure prone” mean to you?
@@dainluke Prone to failure. Like the 13/14th gen chips getting replaced in data centers every other day.
@@JJFX- Would you regard data centres as max utilisation use cases or low utilisation use cases?
@@dainluke Would you defend Intel without understanding the issue you're arguing against? The answer is YES. Imagine not understanding a topic and vapidly arguing against it without even offering a counter-argument. You're frying your ICC/Ringbus with 2 p-core boosting and I'm comfy knowing that 1) you didn't even know about the issue and 2) you're so butthurt about being told about the issue that you deny it is an issue without having any knowledge of the issue
You're so silly.
@@jabronilifestyle When have I ever contested you on whether the ringbus is more sensitive than the IA cores themselves? When have I ever contested you on that sufficient voltages under sufficient conditions will cause degradation? The reason I am not concerned about 2-core boosts or the ringbus is because so long as the core/cache rail is kept in check, most decent chip samples will be just fine. Aside from my own CPU samples, I’ve tested others too. Two cases where individuals came to me with faulty CPUs, their BIOSs were old and they’d been using uncapped limits for months on end. It could be that high voltage from 2-core boosts degraded their ring silicon, or it could be that they’d been running at 300W with 1.25-1.3V at load. The 5.7P all-core target was always too high and if you look at the Intel spec page, they never intended the 14900K to be a 5.7P part. The same thing goes for the 13900K - it was never meant to target 5.5P at load.
i have had 2x 13900k desktops since feb and march 2023 and never had a single problem. idk those failed chips I can only speculate had woefulyy inadequate cooling
They were oxidized as confirmed by Intel. Intel knowingly sold defective chips (why they're being sued). It's against the law to knowingly sell a defective product.
The future for you - Your chip is degrading slowly and it'll eventually start showing instability issues (unless you locked p-cores, then you might be ok). Enjoy your RMA, you even get to RMA it!
@@ufopulse I think some people got unlucky with the work they were doing before they realised that they were using settings that weren’t safe, and then they suffered chip degradation. They’re all getting RMAs so I don’t even get what the issue is. It just pisses me off that there are people who think they know what they’re talking about going around trying to scare everyone into thinking that their CPUs are all screwed. I’ve heard stuff as ridiculous as people saying that our CPUs are guaranteed dead after the 5 year warranty. Shit’s freakin’ lame.
@@dainluke >It just pisses me off that there are people who think they know what they’re talking about going around trying to scare everyone into thinking that their CPUs are all screwed.
The source of the information is two separate Intel designers, one was a lead for 12th gen. What's ironic is that you can't see what a hypocrite you are - you literally are the midwit that thinks they know what they're talking about only you're white knighting Intel and convincing users that their CPUs are fine when Intel's own designers disagree with you. Just be fucking wrong, it's okay SHEESH