Xeon E3-1575M v5 ("QK9N"): Engineering sample received in system

[SkyHound]

I purchased a mini PC with a supposed "Xeon E3-1575M v5" processor inside.

Upon disassembly and closer inspection, I noticed the processor carries a Q-Spec "QK9N" rather than the expected S-Spec "SR2QV".

The chip is identified as "Xeon E3-1575M v5" in BIOS but was read as an ES chip in CPU-Z with the almost the same family/model/stepping/revision as a non-ES chip. 

I contacted the seller and he cannot confirm whether this chip is genuine or not, and I have no information regarding the Q-Spec in Skylake mobile processors, I cannot validate this processor. 

Also, the chip is soldered and the complete disassembly voided my warranty, I cannot return this PC either. Since this chip performs rather similarly to a non-ES model, I decide to keep the system.

I would like to ask: Is this processor is a functional and genuine Intel processor, based on the information provided? And if I decide to keep this processor (as part of a system), will there be any legal consequences and/or technological difficulties?

Hope you can help!

Information on the processor in question:

FPO: J544B810

ATPO: 751E69T301181

Q-Spec: QK9N

[AlHill]

Read this: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005719/processors.html

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/93354/intel-xeon-processor-e3-1575m-v5-8m-cache-3-00-ghz.html

Since you cannot return the system, and voided your warranty, you really have no options. Do not be surprised if you encounter errors or failures.

And, you need to report the seller for selling systems with ES processors.

Doc

[SkyHound]

Surprisingly, after nearly half-year of extensive 24/7 usage in an edge-computing environment, the machine functioned as expected without any failures and even outperformed a laptop with the same processor, likely due to sufficient cooling.

The seller responded that my unit received is a pre-production sample. Later revision does use a production model of the processor.

[AlHill]

"The seller responded that my unit received is a pre-production sample."

Which was illegal for him to do, but glad you are up and running.

Doc

[SkyHound]

Illegal? Probably not.

Unethical? Definitely!

Since the discussion of (questionable) business practice is beyond the scope of this forum, I guess we can stop it here.

Thank you for the help by the way.

[AlHill]

Well, when there is a legal agreement in place that states they cannot be used in a production system, it is illegal and unethical.

But, you are correct - it is a very bad business practice. However, caveat emptor as the saying goes.

Doc

[HMark4]

Hello,

I have same situation except processor is I9-9900T and it is not a firmly soldered processor.

Can I use this? Seller is chinese and I really do not expect any help from there.

This processor seems to function good enough and I can live with it, but is it allowed to use it? Or should I contact Intel to have some kind of swap to replece it?

[SkyHound]

Engineering samples of 9900T, i.e., "QQC0" (P0) and "QQZ6" (R0), are clocked lower than the retail chip. The are functionally similar to 9900T, but are slightly inferior due to the clock speed disadvantage. Any board with BIOS later than Q2'19 should boot the chip with no problem.

Anecdotal evidences suggest the chip has a bug that would cause the chip to default to its base clock rather than adhere to AVX offset under certain AVX workload, which would not occur on retail chips. This has not been fixed by the microcode update (and probably never will given its engineering sample status).

Intel will not provide warranty or exchange for such chips.

[AlHill]

"Intel will not provide warranty or exchange for such chips."

That is correctm, since they should never have been put in the channel anyway. The agreement between Intel and those who receive ES chips states that.

I do not understand why we are debating this issue. The Intel document on ES chips is pretty clear:

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000056190/processors.html

Doc

[AlHill]

Does it say ES?

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000056190/processors.html

Doc

[HMark4]

Yes, it is definitely ES processor.

[AlHill]

Then, you are screwed, unless the seller will take it back (which I doubt). Next time, purchase only from an authorized distributor/seller.

And, although it may seem to work well enough, it is likely missing some functions/capabilities.

Doc

[HMark4]

Sounds like you do not have any answers to my questions.

Let's wait for Intel personel.

[AlHill]

What kind of answer do you want? You have already identified the processor as an ES. The Intel link I gave you says Intel will not replace it, and there is no warranty.

The problem is between you and the seller.

Doc

[HMark4]

Just want you all to know, I have tested this for about a month now and it seems to be OK for my purposes.

Well - maybe some RISC/ARM-based processor might give same power with less power consumption, but it's quite OK like this now.