Raptor Lake degradation. For those that didnt know or werent able to keep up.

[AngleOff66]

Saw this on reddit. Not every Raptor lake is affected. To quote:

"13th and 14th core generation with an actual Raptor Lake die are potentially affected"

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/1edhm93/raptor_lake_degradation_issue_rpldie_faq_10/

There are vids on yt as well.

If I understood things correctly Intel will release a microcode patch mid august.  No idea what the MB makes are doing?

I hope that for anyone having trouble that Intel steps up and helps you all out.

[diego999]

From what I've been reading, there are two separate issues:

- The microcode bug that sends excess voltage to the CPU, it will be fixed with a BIOS update in august according to Intel.

- Oxidation issue due to a failure in production, this is not solvable as it's a physical defect inside the chip. Again, according to Intel, this was discovered early during 13th gen production and it was solved, so no 14th gen is affected, or so they say.

In other words, they knew about this issue, keep quiet about it and sold thousands of 13th gen CPUs knowing many of them would eventually fail.

This seems to be a colossal disaster for Intel.

[SharpeXB]

I wonder if this would explain the defective i9-13900K I just replaced. 

[Aapje]

Probably.

[LucShep]

Well, it took a while to see the problem exposed.  It had been pointed since 13th gen got out in late 2022 that there would be issues.

13th and 14th gen "K" CPUs are in essence 12th gen CPUs "cranked up", overvolted to the moon and running melting hot. A really bad idea, when it's a given that motherboard manufacturers, in their turn, then unlock all sorts of stuff on top of that (so, even more voltage, such as "Multi Core Enhancements" and all limits removed), just to extract that little bit more (even more) to beat the next competitor. 
It was a lose-lose bet from the start and, sadly, the injured part are really the users, not the manufacturers.
Now people got degraded CPUs, and I'm not sure how many of the affected users will win the battle of RMA-hell.

The other problem (if not the main one) is this obsession with "single-core benchmark scores", that most modern tech reviewers use as a yardstick, and that then influences people to chose this and that. 
Of course both Intel and AMD are watching and then "oh that's what they want, and using it to compare us with our rivals, ok... we'll ramp that up for next releases"....
When that started to happen, you started to see hilarious voltages for insane single-core clock boosts, both from Intel and AMD. 
Which in the end matters close to nothing to your gaming and real life usage... unless (yep!) you're running the silly single-core benchmark! 

If you're running a stock 13th/14th gen i7 and i9 CPU (not overclocked), then perhaps consider locking all your P-Cores to the same clock, the same value that is listed for the max "all core" clock out of the box on your processor. And, after that, also using offset voltage to readjust the CPU bottom voltage (more or less, depends on individual CPU).

By doing that, you're basically attacking the problem in two fronts, 1) you stop those one or two cores from boosting way too high, which pushes stupid voltages and degrades further, and 2) with the offset you move the bottom voltage just a little bit, to make it all work reliably with whatever application.

Make a stress test (with AVX2) using Intel XTU, or continuous multi-core runs of Cinebench, while monitoring (HWinfo, for example) your CPU package temps, power, VIDs, etc. 
Just with that changed, it's imediately noticed a considerable reduction in CPU power consumption and temperatures, while fixing crashes, and possibly the further degradation.

Edited July 28, 2024 by LucShep

[BitMaster]

....or open the trash can and end that drama.

 

I would not feel comfortable with any of those CPU's in my system no matter what kind of Microcode or Bios update may come as the praised solution to fix it all.

 

Imho, if it was voltage alone, why did it take soooo long to find that simple dial to fix them all ???  something is not right

[Aapje]

6 hours ago, LucShep said:

13th and 14th gen "K" CPUs are in essence 12th gen CPUs "cranked up", overvolted to the moon and running melting hot.

No, this is incorrect. Raptor Lake is actually a new chip design.

It's a bit complicated though, since the 13th gen processors are not all Raptor Lake. Everything from the 13600K to the 13900K is Raptor Lake, but everything below that is rebadged Alder Lake (so 12th gen). Then for the 14th gen, the entire line up is just rebadged and overclocked Raptor Lake.

Note that they've been bragging in the past how quickly they designed Raptor Lake, but they probably regret that now.

[Nightdare]

10 hours ago, LucShep said:

Well, it took a while to see the problem exposed.  It had been pointed since 13th gen got out in late 2022 that there would be issues.

13th and 14th gen "K" CPUs are in essence 12th gen CPUs "cranked up", overvolted to the moon and running melting hot. A really bad idea, when it's a given that motherboard manufacturers, in their turn, then unlock all sorts of stuff on top of that (so, even more voltage, such as "Multi Core Enhancements" and all limits removed), just to extract that little bit more (even more) to beat the next competitor. 
It was a lose-lose bet from the start and, sadly, the injured part are really the users, not the manufacturers.
Now people got degraded CPUs, and I'm not sure how many of the affected users will win the battle of RMA-hell

 

I think Intel's issues won't limit to customer backlash on this

Them telling people they paid for an unlocked K-class CPU, that they have have to run at stock clocks (if at that and not lower) forever and then still hope it doesn't fail due to corrosion, isn't gonna go down well

But they also threw their boardpartners under the bus just a few months ago, only for the problem to exacerbate not long after Intel's own Bios 'Fix"

Now, I don't know the inner workings of Intel. but I'm pretty sure they informed their BP where the "do not cross this line/ye who enter here, abandon all hope" was at release of Gen 13-14 CPUs

Nobody was waiting for 'their' product to become news by melting down from normal use (and 'normal' is subjective under the K-class silicon, LN overclocking anyone? Nothing up to 12th Gen gave any hints those CPU's would self-annihilate)

The BP's probably didn't do any different than what they did in previous Gens, relying on Intel CPU safety features, which worked as intended, but the added performance simply accelerated the deterioration

 

How this will affect Intel's (or BP's) market? Probably not much, the bulk of the money is made on millions of bare bone workstations, not on entitled gamers, otoh, it's that small part of the market that gets most of the attention in the press, then again, Mercedes isn't selling less cars when not winning F1 either

[LucShep]

8 hours ago, Aapje said:

No, this is incorrect. Raptor Lake is actually a new chip design.

 

No, it isn't. 

Raptor Lake (13th/14th gen) is "Alder Lake 2.0".
There was no fundamental change in design whatsoever, it's basically a refinment of the very same heterogeneous CPU architecture, to achieve higher clocks, higher L2 and L3 cache, with revised P-Cores and more E-cores added, all with "optimized" (LOL) voltage frequency curve. 
Of course, all at the inevitable cost of higher power consumption and temperatures, pushing the silicone and circuitry to previously unseen levels.

I'm sure we can all agree that Anandtech is an absolutely valid reference in the tech reviewing space, and I'll quote from their 13th-gen review:

Quote

https://www.anandtech.com/show/17601/intel-core-i9-13900k-and-i5-13600k-review

Because Intel isn’t significantly tweaking their CPU architectures for Raptor Lake, the chip is essentially a refined version of Alder Lake. That means we’re still looking at a mixture of P(erformance) and E(fficiency) CPU cores, based on different CPU architectures and designed to allow Intel to hit high performance levels in both single/light-threaded workloads that favor the P cores, and heavily multi-threaded workloads that can also saturate the E cores. The P cores are based on what’s technically a new architecture, Raptor Cove, while the E cores are still based on the same Gracemont architecture as what we saw on Alder Lake.

We’ll dive into the internal bits of Raptor Lake a bit later on, but at a high level, Intel is improving performance versus Alder Lake in three ways.

1. Higher clockspeeds, especially for the P cores, thanks to some architectural optimization work combined with further refinements of the Intel 7 fab process
2. Additional E cores in all desktop SKUs, to boost performance in multi-threaded workloads
3. Additional L2 cache for both the P and E cores. The L3 cache is also a bit larger, primarily to accommodate the larger number of E cores.

The higher clockspeeds and additional cache mean that Raptor Lake should be faster in virtually all scenarios compared to Alder Lake. For single-threaded and lightly-threaded workloads, the faster P cores can chew through work. Meanwhile the full combination of additional E cores and higher clockspeeds means that multi-threaded performance often shows even greater gains.

Compared to the relevant 12th Gen Core SKUs, Intel has replaced the P cores with new Raptor Cove cores on a 1:1 basis. Meanwhile for the E cores, Intel has effectively doubled the number of E cores for each corresponding SKU. e.g., the Core i5-13600K now has eight E-cores whereas the Core i5-12600K had four. Otherwise, TDPs remain unchanged from the previous chips, with Intel officially targeting 125W – though PL2 limits have crept up from 241W to 253W.

Focusing first on the flagship chip, the Core i9-13900K has an incredible max P-core turbo of 5.8 GHz. This is an increase of 600 MHz over the Core i9-12900K. Although it has the same performance core count as its predecessor (though with Raptor Cove cores), it now features double the efficiency cores; a total of 24 hybrid cores comprised of 8P and 16E cores. This makes for eight more threads, for a total of 32, up from 24 on the Core i9-12900K. 

One thing to note about the efficiency cores is that Intel has lowered the base frequency of these cores to 2.2 GHz base, which is down from 2.4GHz on Alder Lake. But at the same time, however, they have also increased the E-core max turbo clockspeed to 4.3 GHz, 400Mhz higher than the 3.9 GHz cores on Alder Lake.

Intel has made similar trade-offs across all of its 13th Gen Core SKUs – so this isn’t just the case for the i9 parts, but also the i7 and i5 parts as well. Ultimately while Intel would ideally like to run the E cores at their highest clockspeeds at all times, the expanded number of cores makes it harder to stay within Intel’s official 125W TDP, necessitating a reduction on the base clockspeeds.

Moving down the stack, the Core i7-13700K and KF processors both have a total of sixteen CPU cores (8P+8E), which is up from 8P+4E on the Core i7-12700K. For these parts the maximum P-core turbo clockspeed is 5.4 GHz, while the P-core base clockspeed stands at 3.4 GHz.

Finally, filling out the i5 spot in Intel’s lineup is the Core i5-13600K, which we will also be testing today. The 13600K parts come with a total of fourteen cores in 6P+8E configuration, four more cores than on the Alder Lake i5-12600K. Both the Core i5-13600K and i5-13600KF feature a P-core max turbo of up to 5.1 GHz (up from 4.9 GHz), and an E-core turbo of up to 3.9 GHz (up from 3.6 GHz).

Getting straight to the point when it comes to analyzing the Raptor Lake platform and Intel’s new Raptor Cove performance (P) cores, there’s no escaping the fact that it feels like Alder Lake 2.0. Which isn't a bad thing given how competitive Alder Lake was when directly compared against AMD’s Ryzen 5000 series, both in regards to performance and price. Intel had a strong platform with Alder Lake, one that the company believes is strong enough to keep up with AMD's latest with the addition of a few performance tweaks.

Intel Core i9-13900K installed into an MSI MPG Z790 Carbon WIFI motherboard (LGA 1700)

 

The biggest improvement over Alder Lake comes through an improved and more optimized voltage frequency (V/F) curve, where Intel has squeezed out an extra 200 MHz at iso-voltage, or a reduction of 50 mV at iso-frequency. These benefits are clear to see, especially with the very high turbo core frequency of up to 5.8 GHz on the Core i9-13900K. It’s worth mentioning that this is actually 5.7 GHz when temperatures rise above 70°C, as per Intel’s Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) technology, or when the power limits allow it; so these highest clockspeeds are attained mostly in single-threaded applications rather than multi-threaded.

Of course, the fact that Intel has now doubled the number of efficiency (E) cores compared to Alder Lake should not go unmentioned. This means the Core i9-13900K now has a total of 24 CPU cores (8P+16E), making for a total of 32 threads. Meanwhile the Core i5-13600K has 14 cores, with 6P+8E, up from 10-cores (6+4E) on the previous Core i5-12600K. With more efficiency cores, the levels of performance in multi-threaded applications have also gone up, but not without increasing the PL1/PL2 limits to 253 W. As a result, Raptor Lake draws more power than its predecessor, but performance levels have also risen generationally speaking.

Also contributing to Intel's gains here are a few cache and other memory improvements. Both the P and E-cores have larger L2 caches for better hit rates, and the L3 cache size has been scaled up to accommodate the larger number of E-cores, bringing the top-end 13900K to 36MB of L3. All of the Raptor Lake chips are also validated for faster DDR5 memory support, allowing them to run at DDR5-5600(B) before any memory overclocking. While not as significant as merely adding more cores or higher clockspeeds, these changes help Intel squeeze out a bit more performance from what is essentially an evolved Alder Lake design.

 

Edited July 28, 2024 by LucShep

[LucShep]

8 hours ago, BitMaster said:

Imho, if it was voltage alone, why did it take soooo long to find that simple dial to fix them all ???  something is not right

The problem is really the voltages and temperatures (especially noticed with single and dual core clock boosts, IMO). 
But I agree that could be something else that was never right.

The part that really disapoints the "long time Intel fan" in me is knowing that this has only one of two possibilites...
Either it's 1) result of incompetence, or 2) they knew and risked it anyways, hiding the potential issues from the public. 

Regardless, it sounds like greed and despair, to get on top of a competitor who has made significant strides within the last decade.

Edited July 28, 2024 by LucShep

[Aapje]

@LucShep

Sigh. It is a new chip design, you were incorrect. The entire reason why 13th and 14th gen are affected, but not 12th gen is because the design is different. Just accept it and move on.

Edited July 28, 2024 by Aapje

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

@LucShep

Sigh. It is a new chip design, you were incorrect. Just accept it and move on.

I guess we have different definitions of what a "new chip design" is then.

Raptor Lake (13th/14th gen) from Alder Lake (12th gen) is as much of a new chip design as Rocket Lake (11th gen) was from Comet Lake (10th gen).

It could be that I look at it by an old man's perspective, but a new chip design (and not a revision/evolution) is composed of architectural and process node changes.

Edited July 28, 2024 by LucShep

[Aapje]

55 minutes ago, LucShep said:

I guess we have different definitions of what a "new chip design" is then.

There is only one real definition, where the chip is designed differently. Fact is that they made architecture changes, compared to Alder Lake (Golden Cove):

https://chipsandcheese.com/2022/08/23/a-preview-of-raptor-lakes-improved-l2-caches/

Architecture changes require a new design.

Quote

Raptor Lake (13th/14th gen) from Alder Lake (12th gen) is as much of a new chip design as Rocket Lake (11th gen) was from Comet Lake (10th gen).

11th gen was also a new architecture, but after a long stagnation in process nodes and thus available transistors, the design was different, but not really better. But it wasn't the same at all.

I understand that from the perspective of a consumer, it seemed very similar, but it is simply factually inaccurate to claim that the design of 10th and 11th gen was the same. And Raptor Lake was also not much of an improvement over Alder Lake, but whether something is a new design is independent of the improvement (or regression) achieved.

Quote

It could be that I look at it by an old man's perspective, but a new chip design (and not a revision/evolution) is composed of architectural and process node changes.

Why would it need both? Strange definition. And either you are really old or not old enough, because Intel started using a tick-tock model in 2007, where they would do a new architecture on the old process node and then use a new process node with the new arch. So they wouldn't do both for the same generation. So by your reasoning, they released a ton of chips that weren't a new design, because they either changed the design, or the process node.

[LucShep]

28 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Why would it need both? Strange definition. And either you are really old or not old enough, because Intel started using a tick-tock model in 2007, where they would do a new architecture on the old process node and then use a new process node with the new arch. So they wouldn't do both for the same generation. So by your reasoning, they released a ton of chips that weren't a new design, because they either changed the design, or the process node.

There.   We just have a different perspective. The tick-tock model is the perfect example I'm trying to convey.

You're looking at it from a pure technical perspective, I'm looking at it from a practical perspective.

Just because a new "Gen" chip with a few changes is launched, doesn't mean that it is an all new design.
I'm sure you can agree that tick-tock model was the definition of Intel's stagnation (generally accepted as such) during last decade. Exactly because of lack of inovation.

Nothing different here in this case, with evolution/revision changes on the P-Cores, from "Golden Cove" to "Raptor Cove".
So, no, it is not incorrect saying that 13th and 14th gen "K" CPUs are in essence 12th gen CPUs "cranked up" (evolved, revised and pushed further), because that's what they really are. 
 

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

The entire reason why 13th and 14th gen are affected, but not 12th gen is because the design is different.
 

Didn't see this before replying, sorry.

Again, it has mostly to do with voltages and huge clocks boosts. Which were never that high in 12th gen.

If you overclock a 12th gen CPU to ambitious levels that require those kinds of voltages, ones that you see 13th and especially 14th gen single/dual core boosts, they'll also degrade at some point.

The microcode bug that sends excess voltage to the 13th/14th gen CPUs, that supposedly will be fixed in August according to Intel, will lower that once the fix comes out.
And I bet that it will penalize performance.

Edited July 28, 2024 by LucShep

[Nightdare]

51 minutes ago, LucShep said:

The microcode bug that sends excess voltage to the 13th/14th gen CPUs, that supposedly will be fixed in August according to Intel, will lower that once the fix comes out.
And I bet that it will penalize performance.

Intel already sent out a bios change to boardpartners a few months back, claiming the values were to high

But the problem didn't cease

 

My guess is Intel is trying to stop a leaking tire by diminishing speed, in the hope it will be worn -and therefore lasted its lifespan (warrantee), before it blows

[LucShep]

41 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

Intel already sent out a bios change to boardpartners a few months back, claiming the values were to high

But the problem didn't cease
 

Yes, there's the Intel baseline profile with newest BIOS releases in past April, but haven't seen a single motherboard with it loaded by default (you have to load that profile yourself, after updating the BIOS with it).
How many users really have done that in their own computers?

Then there's this issue now with a gazillion of users mentioning problems, even after loading this profile and rectifying things, and still having processors going faulty, system lock-ups, bluescreens and whatnot.

By that point, if the CPU had already started to degrade, due to previous excessive voltages and limits removed, then of course that's not going to help it.
A degraded CPU is one that now needs more voltage for the same specific clock, not less. 
 

41 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

My guess is Intel is trying to stop a leaking tire by diminishing speed, in the hope it will be worn -and therefore lasted its lifespan (warrantee), before it blows
 

With all this happening, it's a fair sentiment. And one that is spreading among many, many users, believe it. 

Edited July 28, 2024 by LucShep

[Nightdare]

58 minutes ago, LucShep said:

By that point, if the CPU had already started to degrade, due to previous excessive voltages and limits removed, then of course that's not going to help it.
A degraded CPU is one that now needs more voltage for the same specific clock, not less. 

I honestly believe de degradation is already present from factory, people overclocking their CPU (which, until this 13/14th gen debacle, couldn't go terminally wrong, unless you screwed around with actual MB modification or Home-brewed bios versions) just speeds up the demise

Intel apparently was under the wrong assumption the cause was boardpartners overstepping the limits

Edited July 28, 2024 by Nightdare

[LucShep]

4 hours ago, Nightdare said:

Intel apparently was under the wrong assumption the cause was boardpartners overstepping the limits
 

Oh, but they do have their share of guilt, be not mistaken.

Imagine buying a top end system that, by default BIOS settings, is pumping even more voltage/amps on an already very voracious hot chip, to higher levels.

If you're pushing that system for months on end, and we know now that these chips have some problem, then some sort of degradation accelerated by questionable BIOS settings is not unexpected.  And if the degradation already started to occur at that point....
 

4 hours ago, Nightdare said:

I honestly believe de degradation is already present from factory, people overclocking their CPU (which, until this 13/14th gen debacle, couldn't go terminally wrong, unless you screwed around with actual MB modification or Home-brewed bios versions) just speeds up the demise

Overclocking and tweaking has many forms.
On one end you have the excessive "Extreme" enthusiast level, raising (even more) clocks and voltages to insane levels with these chips. 
On the other end you have the mild OC tunings with locked clock on all cores, or the overclocking/undervolting ones that are far less severe (and probably better than stock for lifespan).

It may take years, but yes, I too suspect it'll be only a matter of time until it starts happening to every i9 13900K/14900K (and also some i7 13700K/14700K) with it at the (currently in use) stock clocks/voltages.  At stock the 13th/14th K processors push too high in single/dual core boost, and it takes voltages/temps that (IMO) are better avoided.

That's why I wrote this above, and quoting:

23 hours ago, LucShep said:

When that started to happen, you started to see hilarious voltages for insane single-core clock boosts, both from Intel and AMD. 
Which in the end matters close to nothing to your gaming and real life usage... unless (yep!) you're running the silly single-core benchmark! 

If you're running a stock 13th/14th gen i7 and i9 CPU (not overclocked), then perhaps consider locking all your P-Cores to the same clock, the same value that is listed for the max "all core" clock out of the box on your processor. And, after that, also using offset voltage to readjust the CPU bottom voltage (more or less, depends on individual CPU).

By doing that, you're basically attacking the problem in two fronts, 1) you stop those one or two cores from boosting way too high, which pushes stupid voltages and degrades further, and 2) with the offset you move the bottom voltage just a little bit, to make it all work reliably with whatever application.

Make a stress test (with AVX2) using Intel XTU, or continuous multi-core runs of Cinebench, while monitoring (HWinfo, for example) your CPU package temps, power, VIDs, etc. 
Just with that changed, it's imediately noticed a considerable reduction in CPU power consumption and temperatures, while fixing crashes, and possibly the further degradation.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2024 by LucShep

[Nightdare]

19 minutes ago, LucShep said:

That's why I wrote this above, and quoting:

 

Yes, but the consumer is not the one to hold responsibility for that, they were promised unlocked CPU's they could tweak to the point of stability at the highest possible settings

The throttling limit was there without worries of going to far

Now, Intel wants the the CPU's to be clocked down or they will self-destruct? They pulled something resembling the VW emission fraud, but with CPU's

 

[LucShep]

1 minute ago, Nightdare said:

 

Yes, but the consumer is not the one to hold responsibility for that, they were promised unlocked CPU's they could tweak to the point of stability at the highest possible settings

The throttling limit was there without worries of going to far

Now, Intel wants the the CPU's to be clocked down or they will self-destruct? They pulled something resembling the VW emission fraud, but with CPU's
 

Sure, and I'm not contradicting you.

But if you're a potential victim in this strange (still ongoing) process with frak knows what exact fix will be, you might as well do something to avoid it happening, or mitigating the issue if it already has started to happen.  For me if I was in that scenario, that would be what I'd do.

[Aapje]

14 hours ago, LucShep said:

Just because a new "Gen" chip with a few changes is launched, doesn't mean that it is an all new design.

None of the chip-making companies ever make an all new design. It is always based on what came before, with changes.

You are just arbitrarily deciding to call some designs 'all new' with no objective basis. 

14 hours ago, LucShep said:

Again, it has mostly to do with voltages and huge clocks boosts. Which were never that high in 12th gen.
If you overclock a 12th gen CPU to ambitious levels that require those kinds of voltages, ones that you see 13th and especially 14th gen single/dual core boosts, they'll also degrade at some point.

The 12900KS boosts higher than the 13700K, but only the latter degrades.

There is something different with the internal voltages of Raptor Lake. It's unclear whether it's just the chip being pushed too far (with the microcode), or whether the chip is (also) more sensitive due to a design change. Intel is not being particularly honest about what the issue is exactly.

14 hours ago, LucShep said:

The microcode bug that sends excess voltage to the 13th/14th gen CPUs, that supposedly will be fixed in August according to Intel, will lower that once the fix comes out.
And I bet that it will penalize performance.

Rumor has it that the performance penalty should be relatively small. About a percent or so. But we'll have to see whether this rumor is true.

Edited July 29, 2024 by Aapje

[Aapje]

7 hours ago, LucShep said:

But if you're a potential victim in this strange (still ongoing) process with frak knows what exact fix will be, you might as well do something to avoid it happening, or mitigating the issue if it already has started to happen.  For me if I was in that scenario, that would be what I'd do.

Buildzoid has the ability to measure voltages, and he found excessive voltages even with the BIOS changes, so most likely any (heavy) usage of the system will cause further degradation until the microcode fix is released (assuming that fixes it).

So the only thing that you can really do seems to be to keep your system off or at least, not put load on it. So go touch grass or watch Youtube, and don't play DCS. Of course, that is not at all a solution...

Edited July 29, 2024 by Aapje

[Dragon1-1]

I'm so glad I made the jump to AMD. It looks like my next PC, whenever that comes, will also be a Ryzen machine. 

[LucShep]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

None of the chip-making companies ever make an all new design. It is always based on what came before, with changes.You

are just arbitrarily deciding to call some designs 'all new' with no objective basis. 

Alder Lake is an all-new design compared to Rocket Lake, completely different architectures. Not the case with Raptor Lake.

We can throw all the objective and non-objective reasons we like until the cows go home. My point remains. 
 

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

The 12900KS boosts higher than the 13700K, but the latter degrades.

There is something different with the internal voltages of Raptor Lake. It's unclear whether it's just the chip being pushed too far (with the microcode), or whether the chip is (also) more sensitive due to a design change. Intel is not being particularly honest about what the issue is exactly.

Rumor has it that the performance penalty should be relatively small. About a percent or so. But we'll have to see whether this rumor is true.

Of course there are differences in the internal voltages of Raptor Lake, and must have to do with the Raptor-Cove changes.
Higher clocks on E-Cores are not helping either, for sure.
The core voltages and VID tables are different, even the system agent voltages are different (probably were offset to not cook even more the processor).

I'm expecting a much bigger hit than a percent or so. But, so long as it stops the problem, it won't be a big deal.

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I'm so glad I made the jump to AMD. It looks like my next PC, whenever that comes, will also be a Ryzen machine. 

At this moment, it's understandable that AMD users are rejoicing with their choice.
I am as well with my Intel 12th Gen being totally fine and exempt of these issues.

But AMD is not exactly exempt of the "single-core boost high voltages" either, or problems in their own platforms, you know...

Edited July 29, 2024 by LucShep

[LucShep]

8 hours ago, Aapje said:

Buildzoid has the ability to measure voltages, and he found excessive voltages even with the BIOS changes, so most likely any (heavy) usage of the system will cause further degradation until the microcode fix is released (assuming that fixes it).

So the only thing that you can really do seems to be to keep your system off or at least, not put load on it. So go touch grass or watch Youtube, and don't play DCS. Of course, that is not at all a solution...

 

Thanks for the heads up, didn't even remember to check up Buildzoid's channel.

Watching the video right now, and there is exacty what I was saying before (crazy single-core boosts + voltages), check at about 12.13 and on:
 

...see what I mean?

It's insane how this happens.
These 13th and 14th gen i9s (and i7s?) all seem to work at stock with well over what is considered normal, reaching and surpassing 1.5v(!!).
12th gen i9s and i7s were already starting to slowly degrade if you're were using over 1.4v on long term overclocks.

I just wonder if it has to do with Intel probably using their own motherboards or BIOS settings for stability and long-term reliability testing, and not used by any other motherboard manufacturers (which could explain why they seem dumbfounded, and would be tremendous incompetent but not out of possibility). 

Edited July 29, 2024 by LucShep
added video with marked timing