Processors
Intel® Processors, Tools, and Utilities
14931 Discussions

25 years of Intel - Why i'll never buy (exploding) Intel chips again

David_Martinez
Beginner
1,125 Views

Its with gritted teeth that I write this post. Gritted because I'm reminding myself that i'm an adult who should have self control, but also gritted at the rage i have looking at my calculation of the amount of time shady corporation tactics have wasted of my life. Roughly 219 hours in the past 4 months.

Here's the story:
I'm 43, was coding primitive ai when i was 14, did a degree in software engineering, then went into HR leadership. Mid life crisis kicks in and I do a masters in data science to get back into what i love. 

Since i'm  looking to move into the Ai world, I buy two pc's to put together, the first is an i9 14th 4090 monster for my models, and the only game i still play: Cyberpunk.

The second, is a concept Ai portable 'Smart Alexa' using GPT for my portfolio, cramming an i7 (placeholder until Core Ultra) and a 4070 super ti into the small but beautiful fractal terra case, heavily customised to include cooling. 

I'm OCD about cooling, so i spent weeks planning layouts, modelling static pressure, the works. I've always used Intel since i built my first pc as a teenager.

So I build the first PC, spend a week training the ASUS Z790 motherboard Ai with stress tests before i even let it go near a model or cyberpunk. 

 

Then the furor happens, JayzTwocents blaming Asus for i9's exploding, Gigabyte quickly falling in line with intels 'poorly communicated at-best' requirements for their chip'. Thousands of posts online, even litering this very forum, of intel chips overheating. At this point, word was spreading to use 'Disable - Enforce all limits' in BIOS.

I was absolutely baffled, because my machine was running like a dream after all that training. 

But then that dream endied abruptly, clearly taking a hard line, intel set their chips to crash if they don't fall within their demanded limits. What these limits were was anyones guess, Intel was suspisciously quiet on tthe matter. 

 

Suddenly my pc is going into BSOD loops, and i can barely use it for 5 minutes without a crash.

As far as i can tell, these forced changes were iterative, in that they got harsher as the number of exploding i9's went up, and ASUS dug their heels in.

Here's my best guess at how the limits were forced in:
Stage 1: Enforce all limits - not the end of the world, pc still worked.
Stage 2: limits put on the boosts, CPU load line restriction to 6
Stage 3: Core ratio limits, 58

Stage 4: Core Ratio limits 56

ASUS of course was doing nothing, it didn't take a core ultra chip to work out that this would only make intel look bad. All those people like me, spending days in BIOS trying to guestimate where the new limits were, were hardly going to be shouting at ASUS, despite what JayZ says.

But thats just the half of it, because what would all the people who had little knowledge of BIOS do? Well if they can't tune on Asus levels, then surely Intel would have thought ahead, and adjusted their XTU! But wait, wouldn't that mean half of their previous statements on the chip were not true? Wouldn't that mean lawsuits?

Well, I went in to XTU to get the answer. Take a look at all my screen shots. After i'd nerfed my core limits down to 56, sticking to 150 long boost, 250 (then 200) short boosts, I find myself with a very diferent chip to what i thought i'd purchased. To make matters worse, Intel pleading the fifth and leaving XTU as it was, demonstrated that even the basic 'speed optimisation' raised the levels higher than Asus. So high, that its blocked by intels own changes. I had to use print screen to get the screenshots since even opening snipping tool was impossible with the speed 'optimisation' used.


Try anything larger than that and you get a BSOD. In a way i'm lucky, lucky because i knew my i9 wouldn't be a 'plug and play' chip, and lucky that i've got the knowledge and hours to adjust my bios 50000 times to get a stable setting.

Both of my intel chips are coming out tomorrow to be switched with AMD. The screenshots say it all, and for those of you posting about overheating and crashes, the currently working bios settings are in there.... as of today that is.
Meanwhile AMD are edging ahead, and doing so with lower TDP's.

I rarely complain about anything, and it takes a lot for me to change my brand loyalty, but
there's something ironic about shady Corpo's preventing me from playing Cyberpunk.

 

0 Kudos
8 Replies
David_Martinez
Beginner
1,059 Views

Additional: Ten minutes after writing this, a link pops up in my feed saying intel have (accidently-on-puprpose) leaked e memo which states that its all down to the micro-code from thermal boost. https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-finds-root-cause-of-raptor-lake-cpu-stability-issues-bios-with-new-microcode-underway
Well go back to the drawing board, the only smart move there was the fake leak because people would test it. 32 seconds I lasted in Cyberpunk with all of the boosts off, cores at 56 and everything else nerfed.

0 Kudos
Mike_Intel
Moderator
918 Views

Hello David_Martinez,


Thank you for posting in Intel community Forum.


We understand your frustrations about the issue. Let me provide also some details about your post.


Intel is aware of reports regarding Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen unlocked desktop processors experiencing issues with certain workloads. We’re engaged with our partners and are conducting analysis of the reported issues. Intel has performed analysis on affected processors and specific system settings and replicated the reported symptoms. Intel has observed that this issue may be related to out of specification operating conditions resulting in sustained high voltage and frequency during periods of elevated heat.


In order to address this scenario while the investigation continues, Intel has recommended to system and motherboard manufacturers a set of ‘Intel Default Settings’ to be released around the end of May, 2024 for 13th and 14th Generation K Sku processors. Intel recommends using these settings. If there is no “Intel Default Settings” profile in your updated BIOS, individual settings noted in the table below can be manually adjusted through the BIOS menu. Please contact your motherboard manufacturer for information on how to adjust these settings in your particular BIOS.


And regarding updates, here is our comment:



Intel is continuing to work with its partners to analyze and determine proper mitigations regarding the reports of instability on Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen unlocked desktop processors in certain workloads. We will share updates on the analysis when it becomes available, please check


https://community.intel.com/t5/Processors/Updated-Guidance-RE-Reports-of-13th-14th-Gen-Unlocked-Desktop/m-p/1594553#M72054 


If you have questions, please let us know. Thank you.


Best regards,

Michael L.

Intel Customer Support Technician


0 Kudos
David_Martinez
Beginner
849 Views

Hi Michael

 

Firstly,. thank you for your response, I have been on the other side of the table and appreciate there is only so much say with these kind of queries.
I am aware of the changes, as I demonstrated in my post. I find the statement that you are working with the motherboard manufacturers puzzling, because ASUS have retained their optimised defaults despite the new guidelines. Now this is pure speculation, but  it seems the screw has been slowly turning on them, to the point where if one turns on any of their Ai functions, even if its just for RAM, Intel shuts it down with an SKU or k_kernal BSOD.
Since the changes have been implemented, my processor now requires its levels to be lowered to a setting that does not meet the advertised clock speeds, and I've had many similar reports from our viewers. In fact, what I am experiencing, and what is being commonly reported, is that I have to lower the levels so much, that Nvidea experience error's as well, leaving me in a perpetual state of either safe boot or selective boot. Now skeptics might say that this is an intended outcome, given that intel have made no secret about how they believe they will achieve global dominance on Ai (best get the Arc's working first though i'd say).

I however, prefer to listen to the manufacturers, trusting that they have their consumers best interests at heart, despite consumers being marginalised by most of silicon valley currently.
So my questions to you are as follows: 
1: Given that intel is "continuing to work with its partners to analyze and determine proper mitigations regarding the reports of instability" is actually causing more issues for the consumers, why are intel remaining publicly quiet on the issue, whilst continuing to add more restrictions to the chip settings (I have been taking screenshots of the settings and measurements for some time now)?

2: I'll assume your answer to 'remaining publicly quiet' will be the link you posted. So the next question is: When Intel executives are made aware that only 6000 views have been made on the public announcement (and whilst May was the posting, its been going on for over 3 months) that their flagship consumer chip is not performing to the originally outlined specifications (I have a copy of that), are they satisfied that they are doing enough to support these customers?
They've made plenty of statement about how brilliant their ai chips are going to be, it seems odd they aren't worrying about the fact that thousand or even millions of customers are having to switch to AMD because they were decieved into thinking the i9 was more powerful than it was.


3. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'Optimization' as "The process of finding the best possible solution to a problem. In mathematics, this often consists of maximizing or minimizing the value of a certain function, perhaps subject to given constraints."

Why does Intel keep a product on the market, that by their own admission in their 'public' statement to 6000 people, keep a product on the market that tunes their own CPU's to "out of specification operating conditions resulting in sustained high voltage and frequency during periods of elevated heat."
If Intel executives had their customers best interests at heart, they would surely make immediate adjustments to their XTU product that set the operating conditions to within the parameters that they have held third party suppliers accountable to?

Sure, this would measn reducing the performance below that which was advertised, and possibly gain some federal scrutiny, but at least they would be seen as resolving the customers issues opposed to making them worse.
I personally have no time for litigation, but we all know its coming. As a long term customer, I would ask Intel to 'do the right thing' in this situation, because if there's one thing 'Stormy Daniels' has taught us, its that litigation is all about timing.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Best wishes

 

David

 

0 Kudos
David_Martinez
Beginner
821 Views

What did we do before cookies? Pops up in my feed again right after I post:
https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/processors/intel-clarifies-what-bios-settings-13th14th-gen-cpus-should-be-used-for-power-and-current/

If only my ASUS Z790 would actually boot without getting the k_kernel treatment at 250 boost (i gave it a margin of 3). 
Sadly its much lower than that, but if PC Gamer think thats its big news that you've posted a clarification on the benchmarks, I'm guessing there's quite a few people who didn't get the memo in May.
Plus what do those kids who got their i9 for Christmas do, should they be trawling through that spreadsheet? And if so, how are they going to be communicated to?

0 Kudos
Mike_Intel
Moderator
806 Views

Hello David_Martinez,


Thank you for the quick update


Let me further check these questions and post the response on this thread once it is available.

Have a fantastic day, and thank you very much for your patience and understanding!


Best regards,

Michael L.

Intel Customer Support Technician



0 Kudos
Mike_Intel
Moderator
710 Views

Hello David_Martinez,

 

I hope this message finds you well.

 

Let me just share the latest update. Kindly check the link:

 

https://community.intel.com/t5/Processors/June-2024-Guidance-regarding-Intel-Core-13th-and-14th-Gen-K-KF/td-p/1607807

 

 

Regarding you question about the performance, Intel is continuing to investigate root cause of this issue. Intel has recommended to system and motherboard manufacturers a set of ‘Intel Default Settings’ to be released around the end of May, 2024 for 13th and 14th Generation K Sku processors. Intel recommends using these settings. If there is no “Intel Default Settings” profile in your updated BIOS, individual settings noted in the table below can be manually adjusted through the BIOS menu. Please contact your motherboard manufacturer for information on how to adjust these settings in your particular BIOS.

 

servlet.jfif

 

If you have questions, please let us know. Thank you.

 

Best regards,

Michael L.

Intel Customer Support Technician

 

0 Kudos
Mike_Intel
Moderator
496 Views

Hello David_Martinez,

 

I hope this message finds you well. 


Were you able to check the previous post?


Please let us know if you still need assistance.

 

Best regards,

Michael L.

Intel Customer Support Technician


0 Kudos
Mike_Intel
Moderator
302 Views

Hello David_Martinez,

 

I hope you are having a good day.


I am sending another follow up to check if you still have clarifications. 

Since we have not heard back from you, I need to close this inquiry. 

If you need further assistance, please post a new question as this thread will no longer be monitored. 


Thank you and have a great day. 

 

Best regards,

Michael L.

Intel Customer Support Technician


0 Kudos
Reply