Intel Patch For 13th and 14th Gen CPUs ?

[Judge]

Looks like Intel might finally be seriously addressing their issues with their 13th and 14th generation CPUs. Apparently happening with i9, i7 and even i5 CPUs.

This has been on ongoing problem for some time, so much so that it is a primary reason I chose to build my latest computer using a 12th generation processor using DDR4 memory with a motherboard that can take a 12th, 13th or 14th generation processor.

One can only hope this patch will fix a problem with nearly a 100 percent failure rate. One for gamers to especially take note of.

https://www.engadget.com/intel-has-...desktop-cpu-instability-issues-130042083.html

 

[Outdated]

That was an interesting read, I never knew it was a wide based problem. I have a 13th generation processor but I've had very few issues, I just thought I had a lemon of a motherboard.

The only issues I have are that once in a blue moon when I boot up it will fail to initialise my wifi card, a quick reboot and everything starts up normally.

I also have problems with The Sims Medieval crashing now and then with graphics glitches where as on my other computer it plays flawlessly. But those computers have different brands of graphics card so I put the issue down to that. That's the only game I have troubles with, all the others are fine.

Maybe issues are less noticeable to me because I don't use Windows. I could never go back to that abortion of a thing again.

 

[Judge]

That was an interesting read, I never knew it was a wide based problem. I have a 13th generation processor but I've had very few issues, I just thought I had a lemon of a motherboard.

The only issues I have are that once in a blue moon when I boot up it will fail to initialise my wifi card, a quick reboot and everything starts up normally.

I also have problems with The Sims Medieval crashing now and then with graphics glitches where as on my other computer it plays flawlessly. But those computers have different brands of graphics card so I put the issue down to that. That's the only game I have troubles with, all the others are fine.

Maybe issues are less noticeable to me because I don't use Windows. I could never go back to that abortion of a thing again.

Are you running an i3 processor?

Most comments I've seen tended to pertain only to the i9, i7 and on occasion the i5 processors.

Given the thermodynamic nature of the issues, if you're using an i3 combined with a more powerful 3 series Nvidia graphics card, it may explain your good fortune. Seems to me you once mentioned the combination so time ago, but I could be wrong.

 

[Outdated]

Are you running an i3 processor?

Yep. It's a quad core though and it does all I need. The graphics card is a big ATI though. The older computer has an nVidia 1660. I lost interest in nVidia lately, price kept going up but performance didn't.

 

[Judge]

Yep. It's a quad core though and it does all I need. The graphics card is a big ATI though. The older computer has an nVidia 1660. I lost interest in nVidia lately, price kept going up but performance didn't.

Unless we find something specifically negative about the i3 processors of these two generations I suspect you've dodged a big bullet. It's just one of those stories where corporate Intel wasn't willing to fess up to any time soon, but the story got far too much traction in the online gaming community.

Ironically I've always been obsessed with thermodynamic considerations, so I have never wanted a cpu any more powerful than an i5. And the i5 12400F defaults to only 65 watts. Gets the job done without doubling as a microwave oven. Any cpu higher nearly doubles the default wattage, causing much more heat to deal with depending on the load.

I get the impression Nvidia has lost interest in their gaming customers altogether. Chasing after AI like everyone else, determined to con their shareholders into increasing their equity.

 

[Outdated]

Ironically I've always been obsessed with thermodynamic considerations, so I have never wanted a cpu any more powerful than an i5. And the i5 12400F defaults to only 65 watts. Gets the job done without doubling as a microwave oven.

I always had i5s before, this is the first time I used an i3. For me the major consideration was cost for performance, I've never had heat issues since my very earliest builds. I never even looked at an i7, that little bit of extra performance for that huge amount of extra cost just never made sense to me.

An ATI 6700 with 12 gig of DDR5 ram does all the work I need it to.

 

[Judge]

I always had i5s before, this is the first time I used an i3. For me the major consideration was cost for performance, I've never had heat issues since my very earliest builds. I never even looked at an i7, that little bit of extra performance for that huge amount of extra cost just never made sense to me.

The only reason I ever saw to even consider an i7 was whether or not I was using any applications really requiring multi-threading. (Applications I didn't have and didn't need.)

But the reality is that such features are now incorporated into the lower tier of cpus with increased cores. That if you have apps with mild multi-threading requirements the i5 can fit the bill most of the time.

 

[Judge]

Gamer's Nexus Steve Burke coming down hard on Intel with more details:

 

[Boogs]

Not heard about this but then I don't take much notice of hardware side of computing on the whole.
But what I found interesting not having heard of this before, is the suggestion a CPU's internal code can be flashed, or at least I assume that's what they mean by an 'update'.

It didn't sound particularly heat related though, other than a consequence (symptom) of running over voltage.

Just in terms of heat dissipation, I run an over clocked i7-8700K and with a aircooler/heatsink, it barely reaches about 36℃ at tick over and never over heats.

Multithreading is a hard one to judge, but in the end it's not reliant on the CPU other than performance, the source code has to be specifically coded for multi-threading of course, but it's the assignment of different threads to different virtual cores that makes the performance difference. If the compiler used on the source code doesn't know how to do this for the CPU being targeted then there's no difference as to running it on a single core CPU (ignoring hyper threading).

Far as I know (things do change though) it's the number of cores that matter more than whether it's i3, i5, i7 or i9, and the use of hyper threading (not the same as multi threading) works on all versions (I believe there were a few old versions that had hyper threading turned off years back). As best I could make out, the numbers (i3, i5 etc) really pertain to general performance/cost level and not any specific technology, and often the differences are to do with the type of RAM that can be addressed, the size of internal and external CPU caches, etc etc. rather than some profound feature that only works on one particular type or other, or a specific number of virtual cores, etc.

I think I recall reading that at the start of the i series, they made one chip, and depending on QC the one's that part failed (may have been number of working cores?) would be assigned as i3 or i5 instead of the full i7.

 

[Judge]

Not heard about this but then I don't take much notice of hardware side of computing on the whole. It didn't sound particularly heat related though, other than a consequence (symptom) of running over voltage.

Not all articles focus on the same issues pertinent to Intel's 13th and 14th gen problems. I just posted one, but here's another. Mentioning that part of Intel's problem is their "Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost". Resulting in erroneously overclocking their own CPU cores and elevating temps. Overvolting on some motherboards isn't helping either.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/14/24178751/intel-raptor-lake-crash-fix-etvb-not-yet
How much more there is to all of this remains to be seen in terms of what Intel does or does not recognize. Though consumers have been complaining for a couple of years now over all of it, whatever it truly entails.

In reality, thermodynamics have been an issue with Intel for a couple of years now. Small wonder for some time two vendors have put out anti-bending buckles to screw onto LGA 1700 motherboards which hold the CPU down evenly on all four sides rather than risk them warping from excessive heat on two sides. Long before Intel even admitted there were problems.

(I'm using one on my latest computer I built just to be on the safe side, though I don't expect anything near those kind of heat levels with a twelfth gen i5.) See link below:

https://www.amazon.com/Thermalright...vice+thermaltake,electronics,145&sr=1-15&th=1
I guess now all we can do is wait and see what Intel does and whether or not it's a real "fix" or just a "band-aid" designed to pacify shareholders and not consumers.

 

[Judge]

https://www.techpowerup.com/324963/intel-will-not-recall-failing-13th-and-14th-gen-cpus