I dislike the narrative that the motherboard vendors were the only problem. The 13th and 14th gen CPUs have a voltage table and Intel pushed the 1 and 2 core values too high in microcode. All so they could have reviews with improved gaming benchmarks.
To me "Mainboard vendors problem" is Intel's deflection pure and simple because Supermicro and HP/Dell boards were eating CPUs just the same. That's a bunch of companies that do not chase benchmarks, they follow implementer's guide as exactly as possible, because in their business fields, 5% less performance is fine, but 2% higher field failure rate is a seismic disaster.
@@AntoineFinch Intel admitted fault where it counts, albeit after a long ass time. Now it's up to the board vendors, and Jay already showed us the horrible implementation in the various BIOS implementations so yes it isn't squarely on one or the other but only one of them is actually trying to fix the situation. Sick of this fanboy "MuH bOaRd VeNdOr" crap.
You also didnt mention that even at the 125w profile due to microcode errors it caused the voltage to shoot up to over 1.6v . It was not just the board vendors. Intels own voltage curve was borked. Intel reps somehow gaslit you into believing it was the motherboard vendors only.
Those of us who are wise to which channels to follow know that it was the microcode asking for all the power and the motherboard says, okay I'll give it to you.
actually, jayz found the motherboard vendor doing bad stuff like 2 years ago, hence why he mention all of this in this angle, but indeed, intel also did an oopsie here.
This whole mess was because Intel deliberately unshackled the built-in CPU safety limits, and in doing so, they literally encouraged motherboard vendors to overclock the CPU beyond the safety limits. This was never a motherboard manufacturer problem. Intel gambled and lost.
Indeed - this was a bug in the microcode where the CPU would request an unhealthy voltage, and the motherboard BIOS would happily give it. Intel have identified *most* of the causes for the microcode bug, but the BIOS should never have allowed it through anyway, and that doorway is firmly closed from now on (as always, never trust what companies say, let's wait for independent testing)
@@ChrisM541 Yes, they should definitely have tied down the motherboard manufacturers and enforced stock profiles. I agree that it's Intel's fault, but the motherboard manufacturers should also have been better behaved. Everyone was chasing AMD at that point, and Intel should have just acknowledged defeat and not pushed so hard
It is not only the fault of the motherboard manufacturers, I remember a video GN made in conjunction with Level1 Techs where they commented that 50% of Intel CPUs failed in game servers where the CPUs had never been run at high voltage or wattage, in other words CPUs that were never overclocked.
i saw that same report. many of the boards were supermicro that had no overvolting or overclocking available in the bios at all. they didnt boost or anything, just fixed numbers. and the chips failed WAY more often than the comparable amd setups they were also testing
They did have high voltage. The VRM configuration necessitated it, particularly in single core loads. The more vdroop, the higher the single core load shoots up so long as the all core load is stable. As an example: A CPU is stable running CB at X volts. If there is a lot of vdroop because of the VRM configuration and LLC settings then the default voltage has to run at vdroop+needed volts. If there is less vdroop then less total volts are needed at single core loads. Level 1 Techs motherboards had bad VRMs for 2010 era 84 watt motherboards, much less CPUs that could swalllow 300w for almost no reason. Those mobos had a ton of vdroop and I bet those CPUs were getting over 1.6v all the time in single core uses, but Wendel is not the type of tech to show that data.
@@ghomerhust Not, I'm pretty sure Wendell's initial video said most of those servers were Asus with Supermicro as well. Intel is far from innocent, but when Asus was the main killer of these i9s on both server and consumer side you can't ignore that. I find it really odd that everyone knows how shady Asus is and it's been well documented, but hory sheet do they hate Intel more and they'll defend Asus if they can bash Intel. I hate Intel as much as anyone and this was a major f*ckup, but there's been a solid amount of witch hunt going on with this as well. When you've got clowns claiming 20%, 50%, even one clown claiming 99% failure rate, you _know_ that's bullshit.
Nah, Jay. Mobo venders were A problem, but the real issue is Intel’s own microcode allowed their CPU’s to ask for voltages that excessive to begin with. Corpo spent weeks concocting funny power mode graphs, pointing fingers and covering their faults up, and it worked on you. Everyone is to blame, but it’s MOSTLY Intel here.
It's both that is what I heard. It's Intel's fault they let it happen and need to fix it sooner than later. If you use to much V you will kill it sooner than later. True for all processors.
That and the ICC/Ringbus for 13/14th gen is the exact same one from 12th gen and per the Designers of 12th gen "ICC/Ringbus is already maxed out". 13/14th gen = 12th gen with extra e-cores and higher voltages/wattages. I wonder why that's a problem??
Yesterday, the local branch of a chain shop was running a promotion, you could get a 14700KF for $300 (tax included, it's in Europe). I decided to give it a try and see what happens. The first processor was DOA and was replaced under warranty the same day with another one from the same batch. The second one even worked for a while but was so unstable that it still caused BSODs, going to RMA it tomorrow. I can safely say that my credit of trust in Intel has been exhausted, and that for my next upgrade I will buy an AMD processor. Edit: Forgot to mention that all of this happened with an updated BIOS, with Intel's "Performance Mode" enabled by default.
@dartimon6941 you went to the shop twice and built a pc and installed two processors and did all that in just one day, and then came to this channel just to write about it? You're lying. you're brainwashed
@@outsidethepyramid Saw the video and decided to share my experience. Also I can prove everything because I haven't returned the processor yet and I have all the documents in hand. And also a reminder, I live within the EU, so take into account the time zone difference. And yes, twice, considering that I live almost in the city centre and it only takes me 10 minutes by bus and a few minutes on foot to get to the shop. Once in the morning to get there on time, because it was a limited quantity offer, and only if you came in person. And the second time in the evening to replace it under warranty when I realised I was "beating a dead horse". And I didn't write that I built the PC the same day. I already have a flawlessly working one with an i5 12600K, which I replaced with an i7 14700KF and did some tests.
@@MariuszChr Was it bought at X-KOM on 19.10.2024 in Szczecin by any chance? It would be very funny if it was and I was lucky enough to get a bad one twice.
This is all good, but def important to remember motherboard companies were doing whatever for decades and we almost never had these issues. This was still on Intel at the end of the chain of failure. Just want to mention that so the buck doesn't get passed too much.
Yeah that was his point, that Intel is finally doing something about that and he correctly criticized their rollout as relying on the board vendors too much despite their reluctance to provide the correct profiles in the BIOS settings. Intel is doing all it can and the board vendors are dragging their feet. *STILLL* .
Microcode controls caused issues, but those issues would have never been seen if motherboards weren't allowed free reign. It's not that difficult too understand.
@@JustSomeGuy009 This is incorrect. The issues happen even on boards which use stock Intel profiles and when people make sure they apply stock Intel values. They were just accelerated by board partners raising limits and the CPU allowing it.
Intel are a global corporation and with any massive company they will try to protect their own interests. Its disgusting how they blamed the Motherboard companies for their own mistakes for the 13th and 14th gen CPU's.
@@petrescuserban983 Yup, and then they go all nvidia and attack their board partners. At a time when they need all the help they can get. I foresee many mb manufacturers pivoting over to amd over intel. Cause this kills one of the 'very' few ways they can differentiate themselves in the market.
Don't let Intel gaslight us into thinking this was just a "motherboard vendor problem." Intel owns the engineering of the CPUs and how much power they let them draw. Board vendors wouldn't have been incentivized to compete in ways that led to burning up and destabilizing CPUs if Intel hadn't enabled them to do so in ways that incentivized that kind of dangerous envelope-pushing. "More stringent motherboard oversight" is all well and good, but Intel put board partners in that position in the first place. Don't let them off the hook.
This. Intels own designers admitted their ICC/Ringbus was at limit and could not support any more e-cores or voltage/heat. 13/14th gen literally did that which is how they were able to rush them out so fast.
@@bearde_mut9731 Yeah there's like 50 comments of idiots putting words in Jay's mouth he never said. They have such an irrational hatred of Intel that they're defending Asus of all shitty companies. 🤪🤪
The funny thing is that Intel has already admitted that their microcode is the problem, but of course they still took a swipe at their partners. Jay, however, is too far in the bag to do anything other than gaslight his viewers.
Were board partners one problem factor? Sure. Were they the primary problem factor? No. That was Intel. Intel tried to spin it as "Those pesky board partners doing their new fangled things!" early on before any larger scale investigation took place, but it soon became clear the problem was significantly much further reaching and rooted within Intel themselves. What Intel weren't banking on was for a large investigative effort to take place over the whole thing and for very big influential and disgruntled partners to break the silence wall and actually talk to hardware outlets about the situation and Intels part of trying to circle jerk not just their general customers but also larger financial partners. So please, whilst it's great to draw attention to the problem of board partner behaviour, don't do so at the expense of shifting accountability for specific events away from where it should lie.
It’s funny how Intel never had a problem with motherboard manufacturers increasing the power profiles for years because it helped them sell their CPU’s at unrealistic performance numbers. This is not a motherboard manufacturer issue, it has always been an Intel issue.
No... It's a motherboard manufacturer issue. I've modified the default ASUS startup options to what Intel wants when I first bought it a year ago, my computer stopped crashing.
@HyperionZero Intel purposefully withheld power limit specs, so the motherboard manufacturers had it reference the microcode for power. Which then said use all of it, beyond safety limits.
@@XirpzyAMD had that problem with _one_ CPU model and _one_ motherboard vendor. Intel has this problem with _all_ motherboard vendors and _every CPU model that consumes over 65W._ Sounds like the problems were actually quite different if you ask me.
What part of the microcode updates did you not hear about? They know there was a problem. They've done things on their end to fix it. The vendors are absolutely still part of the problem. Jay's shown it before on the channel.
Its 100 percent boardpartner. On my 11700k i can go as high as i want with vcore. So if the motherboard manufacturer decides to put some high voltage in, he can do it. Thats what they will stop with arrow lake.
@@Met1900 It's 100% Intel's fault for taking the 12th gen chip, adding more e-cores/voltage/wattage and rushing it out when their own designers said it would fail.
Intel lost me when they started doing "generations" that were more like facelifts and you also needed new motherboards like every other "generation". That and their pricing taking advantage of there being little competition, to me that just showed greed - something illustrated that when AMD was competitive again Intel lowered their prices 40-50% and pushed OEM in all sort of ways to keep AMD out (look up Intel anti-trust fines). The recent quality issues and frankly them doing all sorts to up core count, using extreme amounts of power and so, to try and look good on the boxes rather than really delivering has not made me consider Intel again. Intel is a sick giant gorilla and those should be put to sleep.
@@MrTweetyhack Not really a good counterpoint these days and really hasn't been for awhile, the vast majority of console titles have been multiplat since the late 6th generation, and definitely by the 7th gen when console hardware finally homogenized with each other and PC hardware. No more Cell Processors, Emotion Engines, PowerPCs, and everything being on x86 and AMD hardware specifically made porting trivial. In any case most exclusives these days are published by Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo or heavily/exclusively funded by them, and most find their way to PC eventually, if not at launch, because when porting became easy, it became easy money, and devs and publishers are businesses, and businesses like money. As far as the 9th gen goes, after four years, I think there's less than thirty titles exclusive to either the PS5 and Xbox series consoles, I know PS5 only has 17. Nintendo has more of an Apple-esque closed ecosystem Intel's history of backroom deals for OEM inclusion, which is what I'm assuming you're trying to tie your counterpoint to, are far more similar to Microsoft's antitrust case in the 90's when they wanted to sell their own PC's, the only difference as anticompetitive as Intel is, they're also on a pretty tight government leash, not only does their market dominance draw extra regulatory attention, their status as the US's only chip fab makes them a strategic resource and subject to a more direct style of government oversight of their business much like Ford and GM, so anything truly anticompetitive would draw much ire from their regulatory masters very quickly.
I'm sure I have posted this before. My experience with other brands than Intel processors sucked. Now don't get me wrong. I loved the 486DLC-40. I also ran a Cyrix PR-233 processor at home. After going back and looking the early processors. I was able to get a better understanding of what was going on. Got to love those You tube videos. One example was something I know about. But, not really sure why was having a problem. Saving money on a system build. Save $30.00 on the Super Socket 7 Board and $30.00 on a Non Intel processor. That a good chunk of change. Client would have all sorts of strange issues. Change to a higher end Super Socket 7 with a different chipset and say high quality cpu fan. Problems all go away. Might have been different if large companies like Dell pushed out Amd systems at large scale. Any issues probably would have been resolved asap.
What's all this talk of motherboard vendors? Intel could just dictate the limits. And in the end it was the CPU's asking for the too-high-voltage anyway, no?
3:50 that was not only the MB manufacturers fault. Intel themselves obviously did not know what their own profiles look like and updated the requirements several times. And generally speaking: MB manufacturers had their fair share on the issue and surely made the issue worse, but in the end it was Intel's algorithm that did the damage. Unfortunately again one of Jay's typical videos: much opinion, facts... not so much.
Intel is stepping up control over motherboard vendors, not because they care about the end user, but because they care about profits and their liability. Their reputation was flushed the moment this degradation issue appeared.
That is literally how a free market is supposed to work. No company cares about the end user beyond the potential profits from that end user and their impact on other potential customers.
I think intel is every bit to blame for this mess. From realizing issues in manufacturing, ignoring those issues, intel loved when their cpu were hitting crazy scores at the time. Now they want to blame board vendors. I think both have a part to blame in this. Even the fixed microcode my cpu now runs hotter with lower scores. Now that is compared to an undervolt profile i did.
So because of Intel's incompetence, they will be punishing board manufacturers, and with that the end user. Isn't that some low level market manipulation? If o was a board manufacturer i would ditch intel. They never take responsibility for their own f ups.
Sounds like the partners are being blamed once again.... how are any of us supposed to trust them when they just can not seem to take responsibility? Mui Loco
This problem sits solely on intel's shoulders. I recently tried updating to the latest stable bios for my MSI Z790 Tomahawk Wi-Fi and was not happy at all with it. I am on the 11-6 bios on my 14-900k and stay around 1.33v on the Vcore on intel's 250 watt setting, but when I updated to the newest stable version, I was consistently staying at 1.45-1.49v on the Vcore with either Intel 250 watt setting or MSI settings in bios and running considerably hotter. When are they going to actually fix this, so I can RMA and get a chip that will last? My guess is, after all our warranties expire. lol
I was always told that a device "draws" as much power as it needs, it's not "fed" power. If I plug a 240W power cord into my laptop, it will not shoot 240W into the laptop if the laptop doesn't need anything above 60W. CPUs should just shut down when power exceeds safe settings, the same way connectors on motherboards now are not symmetrical so they can be plugged backwards. This is 100% an oversight and almost a manufacturing fault.
100% correct. Intel unshackled the built-in CPU safety limits, limits that are designed to combat unsafe overclocking/BIOS settings. Intel gambled and lost. Intel now wants to (wrongly) blame MB vendors. In the end, this is Intel's fault...and only Intel.
@Juralbis, what about power spikes when the voltage gets over 5% or more fed to your home equipment? Same thing and worse goes for electronics. These would not have been issue if the recommended voltages were followed, but they did open the gates, *pun* and what did happen. To use another analogy, if you feed a CAR what is it called again nitro, it will boost power, you feed it that much for too long you blow up your engine lol. In this care what your threw in here doesn't go as an comparison. know your stuff lol 😎🤛
@@NAMOR5000Every part of the system is usually specifically designed to avoid failure due to voltage spikes, not just the mobo. Iirc, GPUs and CPU sockets have built-in capacitors to soak up the extra power if it's coming in way too fast, which will break the current flow when overloaded. Truth is, the voltages given were within the CPU's safety spec.
@@NAMOR5000 Voltage is a different beast than current, even if they are directly related to each other. Current is NOT fed, as the OP said, but voltage is. The device uses as much as it uses as far as current is concerned, and voltage is regulated according to several factors. As far as what Intel recommended, they obfuscated it enough that there wasn't a fully understood standard. For instance, when I choose a component part for a circuit I'm designing, I look at the datasheet and it will list directly in a spreadsheet table exactly what the current and voltage limits are (say for a microcontroller it's minimum 3.1v and 250mA while the max is 3.5v and 650mA. I cannot control the current pulled by the microcontroller, and I regulate the voltage because it says I should not go over 3.5v). However, with this being a 2 sided issue, the cpu can request a voltage variable, and the motherboard can give it a variable voltage. Had Intel gave datasheet specs that said MAX INPUT VOLTAGE 1.6V, then the motherboard manufacturers would have put that software defined limit in place. Intel also apparently didn't put that software defined limit into the cpu, thus the issue. It was an issue on both sides, and Intel tried to throw everybody else under the bus, without acknowledging that it was their problem first. Edit: addition, let's put it into similar terms with a vehicle. The engine and ECM would be the processor. The fuel pump and various other systems would be the motherboard and the rest of the pc. The fuel pump (voltage delivery) does have it's own hard limits, but control is by the ECM and calculations it uses based on information it received from the various sensors (like oxygen sensors). If the calculations in the ECM (microcode) are off, or can be thrown into a runaway situation, the ECM will tell the fuel pump to send more or less fuel because the engine needs it, even though it actually doesn't, and cause either running issues, or the engine to self destruct. The fuel pump itself can be specified to only deliver a maximum of so much fuel it can throughput, but again, final control is by the ECM and if the ECM is telling it to give the engine all this fuel or not enough fuel, there's not much the pump can do but listen to the ECM until it's own minimums or maximums are reached.
It has more to do with the bus clock than the CPU. When you increase the voltage to a timing crystal it outputs a higher frequency (increased timing). The increased power consumption of the CPU is a result of increased operating frequencies resulting from a clock speed increase from increased voltage.
So is Intel making an actual "spec" now and ditching their impossible to follow "guidelines"? (Edit) Nope, sounds like they're making more work for themselves, to not admit fault, by spending resources to control mobo vendors instead of just fixing their convoluted and contradictory "power profiles".
they're basically doing what AMD already does but putting a flashy branding name on it to sell it as a "feature" to consumers.. AMD already hardlocks vendors out of modifying AMD's default settings since day 1 of ryzen. the only way they can adjust it is with the reported voltage at a controller level.
@@sirmonkey1985 AMD, because of the superior device process they are using, could operate similarly at about half the power of Intel. Intel depended on their genius to push inferior processes as far as it could go...and beyond. That's the fundamental issue.
The warmer room temps of those e-cafe's may play a role, but humidity only matters if you're using evaporative cooling with water, which I've not seen in the wild, and certainly wouldn't expect in an e-cafe.
Humid air's thermal capacity is significantly higher than dry air. It's why deserts get cold so quickly at night. A humid cafe may run warmer, but that warm will be a more stable temperature since it takes more energy to move the temp up or down a degree. I doubt it matters for their testing. This would be a concern when testing heatsink coolers
@@meeponinthbit3466 The thermal capacity of humid air isn't substantially higher. Aside from the effect on cloud formation it has very little to do with deserts getting cold at night, that is a matter of black-body radiation which is mainly controlled by clouds and dust/haze. From extremes of 9% and 90% relative humidity the specific heat capacity increases about 8% (7% at 40⁰c and 11% at 10⁰c, down to 0.5% at 1⁰c) meaning high humidity air will convect away slightly more heat compared to dry air. Water vapor is also somewhat more conductive than dry air due to the higher mean speed of the lower mass gas particles, but this is only significant at extremely warm temperatures or high altitudes due to the low vapor pressure of water relative to standard atmosphere.
Humidity may not matter for temperature purposes as much as for oxidation/corrosion purposes. The combination of high temperatures/humidity for prolonged periods can wreak havoc on electronics, so it is often used as a proxy for testing how electronics will age long-term at more normal conditions. Is very common to do accelerated life testing in temperature/humidity chambers in a controlled lab setting, and I would assume Intel and everyone else is already doing testing like this. Maybe the e-cafes are just a bit of extra real-world data, but I would not consider that controlled enough on its own for real validation testing.
@@veraxis9961 Humidity is only a factor in storage. In use the electronics are always warmer than the air so there is no condensation or rise in oxidation. Now if they are at the beach the chloride in the air could cause some accelerated corrosion. especially if shutdown overnight allowing even the slightest condensation.
I have a 5800x3d and don't plan on upgrading away from it for like 10 years or so unless something like Citiews Skylines 3 or another simulator forces me to
@@Montisaquadeis I have the same cpu now and I'm not planning on changing it for at least 7 years. My old i5 3570k lasted 11 years up until a couple of months so yeah
yeah no, the motherboard companies were a small part of the problem but the largest part of the problem with the whole 13/14th gen lands on Intel's feet plain and simple. The fact that intel is now controlling what the board vendors can do on their own products just goes to show how bad intel is laying this on the boards vendors feet when they only played a small part of a much larger issue.
To me the issue is just the default. I put a 13700k in a new mobo and noticed a lot of thermal throttling. I thought i did something wrong with my AIO. A long rabbit hole for someone who didn't realize the default unlimited power settings were not good.
Did you place one of those thermalright or grizzly frames or you used the motherboard frame. I built mine on thermalright frame and b660 tomahawk board and temperatures doesn't reach 40C
This was all a big intel problem. 1. Intel wasn’t bothered what motherboard vendors did until the issues made news. On the other hand, motherboard vendors actually said that AMD oversaw everything that the AM4/5 boards could do. That’s why when the 7700x3D issue happened, AMD immediately held their hands up and took the blame and issued replacements. Intel blamed the motherboard vendors first. 2. When Intel forced Intel profiles on all boards it took so long because Intel’s guidance on its different profiles was so hard to interpret leading to massive differences between boards.
Intel has to proove themselfs to regain trust, before we build systems again with these SKUs. Although a lot of clients asking for Intel, but we cannot recommend Intel at this time. We has RMAs elevated end 2023. And we had to replace motherboards and CPUs. And all our systems are high end all with custom loops. So in manhours that's a lot of money. And no one can garantee we get our extra money back.
What also pissed me off was the corrosion issue which Intel knew about for almost a year and never alerted the general public because it would hurt their bottom line. No doubt class action lawsuits will be filed for that issue.
As if it wasn't Intel's fault that this whole instability issue arose. If a chip maker isn't enforcing their specs, or even defining them in a stringent and concise way, this is what you get. Plus, the actual core of the issue was those CPUs requesting more voltage than healthy in various situations including low load and high temps.
Intel had years, decades, massive budgets to know the heat and environment that degrades and crashes silicon. Over voltage to a breaking point should never happen by itself in a game, server, extra. Hope they learn a hard lesson, its hard to develop a system yet you feel the idiot level is still too high with them. They need to slow down and support there products over a longer period and rebuild trust. If your rig and server are running for years on end and you perceive the value then your next build will be what ever served the intended purpose. Intel just does not have that right now.
This issue is 100% the board partners. Intel has zero control over what voltage went to the CPU's. They took advantage to Intels durability and thermal ability, which is vastly better than AMD's. ps, I own 10 grand worth in AMD equipment. AMD sucks, for anything other than mining. Intel is superior in quality, stability, daily use, gaming, latency, longevity, literally everything else other than mining.
@@thehavok4258 "Intel has zero control over what voltage went to the CPUs" What do you think a voltage controller in a CPU is for? The CPU voltage controller was requesting excessive voltages which ended up frying the ring bus, and the motherboards provided it because, according to Intel's power spec (or, in many cases, lack thereof), said voltages were perfectly fine and safe. If it was only a mobo issue Intel wouldn't need to release microcode updates and game server CPUs (which are typically run at low power) wouldn't end up failing at nearly the same rate.
@@HunterTracks The CPU doesn't ask for anything... That's not how electricity or CPU's work. Mobos were overriding Intels safety features. Everyone knew this when 12th gen launched. The fanboys are so desperate for Intel to be wrong here because AMD has been such buggy trash since day 1 ryzen.
@@HunterTracks Idk where my comment went to you. But day 1 12th gen, everyone pointed out how some of the mobo venders were ignoring and overriding intel's safety measures and pushing way too much power to the CPU's for too long. Every youtuber pointed this out long before it became a problem. Then it became a problem like a year and a half / 2 years later. No one said "the micro code is asking for too much power" lol. This is the fault of the boards. The only fault from Intel is not telling the board vendors to stop shitting the bed. Which should have been done ages ago, all boards are literal trash for top dollar.
@@thehavok4258 First, 12th gen is not affected by this issue, only 13th and 14th gen are. Second, maybe try addressing what I actually wrote? Why would Intel need to release microcode fixes if the microcode worked correctly? Why would server CPUs that were fed low power be affected if the issue was only about how much power the mobo fed to the CPU? P. S. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and the issue was entirely on the board partners. It sure sucks that, for whatever reason, Intel doesn't perform any certification on partner boards, like, say, AMD does.
yep - this is why Nvidia graphics cards are now just basically clones of each other. Yeah there might me a model or two that have an average performance above the rest of the crowd, but it's mostly just 'grab the one you think looks best'. (Silly 'same mode, different chip/memory type/amount/etc aside)
Up until about 2 years ago, I had an i7 930 running with a slight overclock still. That CPU came out in 2010... I bet it would still work if I fired it up today.
@@ChrisM541 That is to each its own. For normal users, yes, but for DIY and enthusiasts and hobbyist and sponges looking for input and can afford it, it is fun to learn new things and see boundaries become broken, or not lol. 🤛
I’m having a difficult time believing it is the motherboards fault. As an Agronomist I can tell you that regardless of my nutrient inputs, the plant will only utilize what it requires for growth and sustainability. Huge oversight on Intel’s part if they DID NOT have protections in place to stop over-volting from occurring. I’m gonna have to call BS on this one. Intel allowed over-voltage in order to keep up with AMD. There is no doubt in my mind that this is what occurred. And now……….they attempt to save face by blaming motherboard manufacturers for what is clearly their fault. I just don’t buy it.
That's because you're making dumb assumptions. They didn't say it was ALL the vendor's fault. They said they were part of the equation. Jay has shown this before on the channel. They worked on their end of things by sending down all the recent microcode updates.
@@Theopheuscan not an assumption be reasonable based on by not having all the information. Being an assumption does not make it “dumb” you owe an apology
@@Argent3333 Don't give me your apology crap. Just another uninformed person who thinks they know everything because they have the internet. When people start bringing back nuance, and stop taking sides, I'll consider being polite again.
Exactly. The cpu's having oxyidization issues is totally on Intel. Not telling the motherboard companies the proper voltages......that they couldn't even figure out is on Intel. It all comes back to Intel shitting the bed
Intel pooped on 12th, 13th and 14th gen and this core ultra does nothing for me on 14th so why bother. 9800x3d or 7800x3d is where its at now, nothing intel related. Unless they make a Core Ultra revision with +30% gaming performance. Which i seriously doubt.
I always stuck with Intel. I am very disappointed with their reaction to this issue. It makes me doubt them. I will wait to purchase anything until they have handled this problem.
@@nexuqk That has more to do with market strategy than anything else. Ironically the most stable systems are usually the ones they aren't pushing updates to anymore.
I don’t think you are seeing the whole story with the voltage, cpus in servers with low limits were dying. There’s also the fact that the microcode is an intel problem and it was calling for extreme voltage because of an Intel error.
oh ffs dont just throw the vendors under the bus, its as much intel fault and responsibility as the vendors, they were perfectly fine with it when it helped them sell for of their CPUs.
My computer buddy tried so hard to get me to buy Intel. He said they’re waaay better than AMD. Well, I did my own research and built my PC with a 7900X3D. Mainly because the AM5 socket was now and the LGA1700 was on its way out. And also the efficiency was far better with AMD. Well, he went through some trouble. He sent his mobo in to get replaced and I think he replaced some other stuff, trying to fix his issue. Turned out his 13900k was bad 😐 Well, my AMD still works great and all I hear is how bad the 13th and 14th gen CPUs are. “My first build BTW” I just got into PC gaming last year
I know the controversy with the 7900X3D and the 7950, but they still run great. Could they have been better, probably. But combined with my 4080, it runs every game great. And I got 32GB of DDR5 with it fo free, plus a game.
I still dont understand why jay keeps acting like the motherboard had a big part when its clear that basically all the blame lies on intel. Intel are the ones who made chips that request absurd voltages under stock conditions. The motherboards do nothing but comply with voltage requests. Sure, your motherboard can allow the CPU to draw 500V if it so wished, but if the CPU was competently made, it wouldnt ask for 500V in the first place. Sure, some manufacturers have one click OC that does make the problem worse, but it isnt a problem if the CPU didnt have one in the first place. Its like a stress test for the chips, not a jack hammer. It itself doesnt usually break chips, but when they are badly designed, they do. Blaming motherboard partners for their boards breaking their chips when server boards dont even use OC their chips have many CPU failures too is just stupid. Theres one common factor here, and its the CPU that requests 1.8V and fries itself near/shortly after the warranty, just to be able to say "im 6+GHz". It may take two hands to clap, but one moves more to meet the other. And the big mover is intel. Edit : Just to add on, these actions taken by intel only shows their incompetence even more clearly. They couldve, at any point, looked at the boards and go "hey, they are doing things that might break our chips prematurely. We should put out a directive to stop it." But they didnt. Board partners can really only do what you allow them to.
Intel had an extremely poor response to the problems with 13th/14th Gen, but if the ARL CPUs are worth buying the prior problems don't even enter into the equation for me. I guess I've been working with PCs long enough that I've seen all sorts of failures along the way and something like this just isn't high on my list of important issues. I can't think of any major company hardware still around that hasn't had some sort of major problem happen.
I'm sorry Jay, but I didn't expect you to give in so easily regarding what has happened with 13/14 Gen. Intel is 100% guilty for any failures of those CPUs. Motherboard makers were not chasing AMD, they were competing against each other to convince the customers that they were the right choice for the customers CPUs. Then Intel - partially by proxy (motherboard makers) - continued to chase AMD until it blew up in their face. Intel said that everything is within spec on the record, so why shuld motherboard makers be faulted? This has been happening for years, only this time Intel messed up their VID table and here we are
The fourth fix for my board’s BIOS is still in beta, and I’m really struggling with whether to trust a beta version of the bios, or not to update and leave the vulnerability.
I wonder when it will be allowed for the mainstream press, or any press, to report the real reason Intel is going under -- Intel's stack ranking method of evaluating and then disposing of employees makes it impossible for the company to retain people willing and able to retrain to new technologies, such as say ASML's EUV lithography machines. Anyone taking time to retrain will be stack ranked out of the company, because it's all about what one is doing right now, this year. All of Intel's problems are due to their not being able to get these machines working for now approaching a decade.
Intel should not blame board companies and once take their mistakes and admit they didn't had a clue what's going on or they knew it but decided to sell it anyway.. well it's all about money in the end of the day. They acting like bunch of clowns.. They would have way way less damage and no loss of trust if they come up and said.. hey we mistake.. this and that happen.. yeah it is how it is... People actualy will like them more because all what customers want is company to be honest.. even if things are bad.. Nothing is perfect on this world, nothing will be.. Many say like oh it's marketing, it's company, ofc they will lie... idk from where that coming from and why is that normalized. If they have people in their departments who does this.. clean them up and problem solved.. That whole mentality that everything must be perfect .. even if not they will simulate perfection.. is stupid.. we all know.. Idk what's going on lately but everyone trying to "please" you telling you lies and tricks you.. That's not normal and if they want keep getting milions and billions of $ in the future there is only one way... being honest and telling the truth.. even if product is not ready.. ok wait.. till it will be.. simple.
Yep my current build boycotted Intel and Ngreedia so that leaves AMD so using my Ole faithful 5600x and a shiny New Sapphire pulse 7900xtx for my 4k gaming endeavors and im far from disappointed with my decision to give Intel and Ngreedia the finger no more fried cpu's and i get future proof amounts of Vram as opposed to barely enough to run games at max settings and better 4k performance and a high-end intrl chip with a 4080 so long as I don't care about RT. I'll take more frames over barely noticeable lighting effects gimmicks
@MrKrampyHands I would love 24GB on the 4070 to run skyrim in 4k because it's literally the vram holding it back not the processing power. that said, there is also AI workloads that only nvidia can do & do it properly for the moment so for me at least, I required a 4070 for my AI-workload server but the gaming machine I make in the future will feature a high vram GPU no matter the brand
Intel never does anything wrong. Always passing the buck off to other hardware vendors They just finished the final nail in the coffin for us OC’s . I refuse to update my microcode of my 13&14gen cpus . But hey I’m already an AMD graphics card so might as well go with there cpus too
Never been happier since switching to AMD's 7950X3D! After dealing with a degraded 13900K and a defective Z690 motherboard, I’m done with Intel for now. This move has been a game-changer for me. Thanks for covering Intel's approach, but it’s AMD all the way for me at the moment!
Gigabyte just announced X3D Turbo the other day. Thankfully it’s a part of the AGESA bios update but I’m super tempted to lean that way with 9000 series
At this point if I was a motherboard manufacturer, I wouldn't even do business with intel at this point because their CPUs are a damn headache to optimize for, it's just ridiculous how much you have to go through just for the shit to work. I remember their was a time where you didn't have to worry about all this bullshit and you just turned on XMP change one or two settings and you where done, the shit worked.
This year's CPU launches are certainly shaping up to be the worst in the past 8 years. If only I didn't "need" to upgrade. Guess it'll be 9800X3D now that Intel has truly dropped the ball.
@@thetheoryguy5544 AMD releasing chips that have the smallest increase in performance since the FX 8350, 9800X3D going to be 10% faster than 7800X3D according to rumors, and Intel is doing another joke launch with an insane 0% performance gain according to rumors.
Just to correct you FIVR only existed on desktop for Haswell and Broadwell on Z87/Z97. After that it went back to using voltage regulators on the motherboard. There is no FIVR on LGA1700.
It'll be something different. Every company has mistakes make it out the door. They also had the FP bug and Netburst and Itanic other mistakes. This one was probably the worst and poorest handled to date though.
Jay, this is upsetting and quite misleading of you, Intel had implicitly communicated to board partners for years that these extreme settings applied by default were IN SPEC, it wasn't board partners responsibility, they work on guidance set by the chip manufacturer. It was solely Intels responsibility to dictate what are in spec settings, and any outside of that are implicitly in the "Overclocking" settings on the board which implicitly implies it's up to the users risk to apply those. That's how it used to be and we need to get back to that.
Can't believe you're actually trying to pin this on the motherboard vendors brother . Bottom line is intel has been running their spec at CAPACITY for TOO LONG
I bought my 14700K in 2023 and first boot up I saw ASUS ai oc running 1.55v. I was like no no no. I manually set everything and its running faster then cooler then ever! maxed out 77C running benchmarks. Undervolted and OVERCLOCKED! 1.22-1.35v its a crazy fast chip I love it.
Not only do I not trust intel, obviously still pushing the blame on others through 'influencers' (yes Jay you are), but I can't trust J2C by being their mouthpiece
Good that Intel is trying to prevent such thing from happening again. It's the least we could expect. But this framing is off the mark and you seem to blindly repeat talking points you were told during your briefings by Intel. Mobo vendors try to get away with things, true, but Intel does not need technical solutions to stop them. Their so called "specs" were intentionally broad to allow this kind of thing and Intel didn't tell vendors to stop cranking up the power or voltages. They themselves wanted it this way. Anything to get even with Ryzen performance. Only after their chips turned into crisps did they start acting like their partners were running wild against their intent. And they seem to still trying to deflect blame. They weren't, and Intel themselves even told them this was all "in spec". Besides all that, the main culprit for the failures, as we all know by now, is their own microcode that pushed the voltage too high, regardless of any overclocking or profiles. This was the main issue and that is on Intel, nothing their partners could've even done anything about.
It's Intel's product and ultimately they are the ones responsible. I've also yet to have any electrical product pull more power than it's allowed. 120v x 20A = 2400w which is typical max power at an outlet and that's not what a lightbulb or any other device automatically pulls. That's on Intel and their own voltage and power regulation. Intel blaming their mobo partners is frankly a bad look and I can further see and understand why EVGA was sick of theirs and Nvidia's bs and just got tf out. Edit: even if it is somehow on the mobo partners, Intel should've had that oversight and been doing that long so, so it's still on Intel. Also, no mobo updates from EVGA for over a year and my 13700k is still going strong without issues. Competent engineers are competent and Intel's, along with their entire company, are not and should not be trusted. When they actually put out marketing numbers that exactly match what gamers Nexus produces (without weird asterisks and tricks), maybe I'll start believing them. Until then, I'll enjoy my longer warranty and my future AMD system
I wouldnt trust Intel for the next generations. Had three intel 13/14 gen since the upgrade the instability began. I used manual voltage since day 1 so i doubt it is degradation because of the voltage bug and think theres another issue in it. I thought over a year its a issue with my gpu , psu , software, drivers , i reinstalled many times i changed gpu psu mainboard multiple times and still random crashes once a day some days none then again. After the intel issue came to light i though oh cpu i never thought of it. Changed one system to AMD issues gone. Changed the other to AMD issues gone.
I can't remember what it was, but GN did cover another issue that was manufacturing based as well. A lot of people glossed over it, but it may be what you're experiencing. Edit: found it, It's oxidation/contamination issues that cause problems at the microcircuitry level. It's the Gamers Nexus vod titled "Intel Needs to Say Something: Oxidation Claims, New Microcode, & Benchmark Challenges"
@@deathventure I read something about corrosion during the manufacturing process. But intel claims it only effected a batch of a few early 13th gen. I guess they kept this information that low and i doubt that it only effect one batch. I mean those crashes were so random i never thought it could be the cpu. I guess many users blame the game or the driver or whatever for the crash and dont realize its the cpu.
I think all of the blame you are placing on board vendors falls at the feet of Intel. Go back and look at that card that lists the 3 or 4 standards and none of them make sense and they actually counter themselves in the same standard. If what you give board vendors doesn't make sense the blame falls on you when they follow it. This is an Intel problem, not a board vendor problem.
Ah yes, Boardpartners at fault because they are in a competition wirh each other for...performance (lol, the famous Motherboard FPS Benchmark rankings), not Intel shitting THE bed with ballooning voltage because they cannot compete archetecturally. Intel Money doesnt stink, huh?
oooph this sounds a lil Intel shilling and gaslighting us into believing it was the motherboard manufacturers fault which is a lie Jay.... it was Intels Microcode regardless of the profile, bugging out and asking for more volts....
Jay, please stop posting the Intel propaganda that the primary offenders were the board partners. The CPU is in control of what it demands, the motherboard just responds to that demand. The issue wasn't overly aggressive power supply settings on the motherboard side, it was Intel's own internal voltage control firmware that would push the voltage over the safe levels. Plenty of failed 13th and 14th gen CPU were used in systems where the motherboard didn't operate outside the recommended settings from Intel, so that duck won't fly. The fact that board vendors were letting their boards supply more power than the recommended spec is something that Intel has used to their own marketing advantage for the longest time, because it allowed them to use the enthusiast web and RU-vid tech reviewers to show that their product was the best for gaming. So Intel initially throwing their board partners under the bus, is so disingenuous that, if I were a board partner, I would seriously consider never exceeding their recommended settings ever again and have them fight AMD on their own without the added benefit that they had because of the "exceeding" power settings.
Lulz Intel STILL trying to blame their partners. To answer the question Jay proposed. It will take a minimum of 1 gen, but probably 2, before they will even be considered.
Intel is now taking the first real steps toward rebuilding trust. They did virtually nothing until their reputation tanked enough to massively hurt sales. It will take time to prove to consumers that their company is worth the investment again.
The intro was just perfect for someone like me who is new and still learning on the PC space. This type of vid from Jay and Team really inform even the noob like me.
@@JomeFromWork except that he’s blaming the wrong people. Most of us in the comments are in agreement. The problem is that the CPU was allowed to ask for infinite power to begin with, all the motherboard vendors were doing is giving intel what they wanted. A motherboard manufacturer should not be responsible for keeping Intel in check. Intel spent a long time trying to trick people into blaming motherboard manufacturers, and clearly it has worked on Jay. If you want honest tech discussions, watch Gamers’ Nexus. Jay can be good, but he is often just a regular casual tech-tuber, and this is one of those cases.
@zf9903 as far as I understand from whole content. Jay mentioned that MoBo manufacturers put more wattage in the chip AND intel microcode also allows it to be the case. He is saying both are at fault but of course mainly Intel. There is a section too on the resolution in place where he explain it. But I see your point that he's somehow blaming the wrong people but it's just the format where he first talk about MoBo manufactures then at the mid section talks about Intel where it should be the other way around.
Exactly, and if you're really that worried about any micro delays because it's on two separate ccds, You just disable one when you feel like gaming and essentially make it a 7800X3D
Ecores belong on a server hyperscaler on an azure or AWS cloud blade where io and disk for database stuff is the most important benchmark. For games p cores are where it’s at
