Thursday, August 1st 2024
Law Firm Investigates Class Action Suit Over Intel's Unstable 13th/14th Gen CPUs
Law firm, Abington Cole + Ellery, is investigating a potential class action lawsuit against Intel due to instability issues in their 13th and 14th Gen CPUs. Intel has acknowledged the problem, stating that elevated operating voltage caused by a microcode algorithm is resulting in instability. While Intel promises a patch, it won't prevent damage already done to affected chips.
Intel has offered to replace damaged CPUs, which could potentially undermine the basis for a lawsuit if the company is honoring this commitment effectively. However, user experiences with Intel's RMA service vary widely, with some reporting smooth replacements and others facing delays or complications. Intel claims to support all affected customers, including those with tray processors, but advises contacting system vendors for pre-built systems.
Abington Cole + Ellery has launched a webpage highlighting the potential class action lawsuit against the computer chip giant. They are requesting affected individuals to submit their information through an online form here.
The effectiveness and value of such class actions for consumers remain questionable. A previous case against Nvidia over GTX 970 VRAM issues resulted in a mere $30 settlement per card for US residents. Meanwhile, users with affected Intel CPUs are advised to lower voltage and clock speeds until the microcode update is released, a less-than-ideal solution for high-end processors.
Source:
PC Gamer
Intel has offered to replace damaged CPUs, which could potentially undermine the basis for a lawsuit if the company is honoring this commitment effectively. However, user experiences with Intel's RMA service vary widely, with some reporting smooth replacements and others facing delays or complications. Intel claims to support all affected customers, including those with tray processors, but advises contacting system vendors for pre-built systems.
The effectiveness and value of such class actions for consumers remain questionable. A previous case against Nvidia over GTX 970 VRAM issues resulted in a mere $30 settlement per card for US residents. Meanwhile, users with affected Intel CPUs are advised to lower voltage and clock speeds until the microcode update is released, a less-than-ideal solution for high-end processors.
61 Comments on Law Firm Investigates Class Action Suit Over Intel's Unstable 13th/14th Gen CPUs
The text that will accompany microcode, bios releases will talk about certain motherboard setting damaging a small portion of CPUs - they know most of the processors out there aren't utilised hard at all, so they can safely bet there's tons of CPU in perfect health, and treat the ones with instabilities as rarities.
How rare? That's the neat thing, we don't get to find out. :p
Just look how confident are they of the longevity of their CPUs:
Intel Extends Warranty of Boxed 14th & 13th Gen CPUs By Two Years In Light of Instability Issues
"We stand behind our products, and in the coming days we will be sharing more details on two-year extended warranty support for our boxed Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors."
So if you bought pre-built there is no extended warranty?
hardware/comments/1ei1zvm
In fact Intel have admitted that all 65W+ are prone to higher than usual levels of degradation and that CPU's damaged prior to the microcode will have no fix other than RMA. So they have said it..
Intel might target just that uncertainty. After the microcode fix there will be a long period when all issues will be questioned - was the damage done before microcode fix, and therefore irrelevant? Is it just normal CPU abuse due to overclocking? And after a couple of months it will be irrelevant, all the marketing will focus on upcoming product, best ever in all areas, even in reliability!
I'm going to be honest, I have zero faith that reddit actively goes out of it's way to ensure moderation isn't receiving gifts and compensation for biased moderation. There's no financial incentive for them to do so.
To top it off, Puget published numbers that show Zen 3 and 4 with higher failure rates than 13th and 14th gen but confusingly with 11th gen Intel having the highest failure rate overall.
Puget's numbers for even it's lower failure rate CPU generations are about twice the average and in general they make no sense. To me it screams low sample size, bad data, or bad SOPs on Puget's end as CPU failure rate absolutely does not vary anywhere near that much outside of this recent Intel issue. This data is definitely only relevant to pugent given no other source reflects their data.
Also note the field failure rates, 13th gen is double that of 14th gen which shows these chips are failing over time. Ryzen 7000 that was launched before 13th gen has something like 0.25% field failure rate, so basically once they're deployed nothing happens to them. Which is pretty much what the server vendors are saying. Whereas those people running intel CPU's say they don't last past the 6 month mark and sometimes even lower.
Also I agree, no other source has the same data and the data itself has too many caveats. A better source would be a system integrator that has actually deployed server farms using these chips 24/7. They haven't published graphs, articles and such but many of them are saying the same thing - the higher end intel 13/14th gen CPU's have failure rates over 25%. All of them can't be wrong..That's a different topic though. My point was, there's no way to tell the microcode update will 'magically' solve everything. If you look at GN's vent at intel, it's apparent that they've been trying to fix this issue for a while as they've known about it. Till date they've been unsuccessful, but lets see what the new one brings. But again, your initial quote was neither stability nor performance will really be affected. My point is there's no way to tell other than actually see what they bring out because, judging by their recent track record, there's no guarantee..
1) First case, guy wanted to RMA, Intel said sure, then he changed his mind and asked for a refund. Intel told him to apply for a refund with the retailer he bought his CPU (obviously, that's exactly how it happens in the EU) but nope, he got mad and opened a thread to complain that intel wasn't refunding him, lol.
2) Second guy was told that if they don't have the same CPU available they will instead give him something better - he didn't understand what that meant somehow and he made a video complaining for 0 reason. Imagine intel telling you we don't have a 13500 - we will replace it with a 13600k and youd be crying about it,lol.
3) Third guy send a picture of his cpu die full of paste and whatever bot intel was using couldnt properly read the serial number. Of course he opened a thread complaining for 0 reason. Microcenter told him to clean the damn paste and resend the picture - he did - and intel went through with the RMA.
Those are the very serious reports we have of intel not honoring rma. We need to stay vigilant and on our toes - intel is denying us warranty :roll:
Also, you seem to be hell bent on defending Intel when it comes to RMA. Well answer this question then, why were server farms denied multiple RMA's after their chip degraded? What are consumers who bought prebuilts going to do when their 1 year warranty expires? Without extending the RMA by 2 years which is pointless, maybe include tray CPU's to be RMA'd as well, wouldn't you agree? I mean, Intel literally had it on their page that tray CPU's are included, only for them to silently edit it later and remove tray CPU's. What is your opinion on that?
But sure, if you prefer me to go along with the intel bashing sure, let's do it
What good is a 5 year warranty when Intel denies 100% of the RMAs, multiple users are complaining on reddit left right and center. Terrible company, ill only buy amd from now on.Who told you that prebuilds don't have or have 1 year warranty? Maybe it's a US problem? Cause in EU it's illegal, you can't even sell a product with only 1 year of warranty. 2 years is the minimum.
I dont have a strong opinion right now on recalls, class actions and so forth, Intel probably need a chance to see if they can at least stabilise chips that havent degraded to the point of no return, alongside RMA'ing faulty chips, it is good they extended the warranty, something they should have announced at least a few weeks back.
We will see the altars in the reviews of the new Ryzen...
Will they pretend nothing happened by setting the set above Baseline?
Why is there no default set? (the story stinks too much)
Will there be mixes with base and extreme?
Is Extreme the OC of Intel, or does it want to seem like the default?
Why does the guy avoid what Intel has seriously done wrong?
Where are the nonsense specifications given by Intel, analyzed by Steve?
When he put the 14900K, what did he mean that Intel is more stable? (well, we saw...)
Why did he make a video 5 days before in which he pretended to know even less?
If prebuilts come with two year warranty, my questions still stand. Because it's been two years since launch, and most are out of warranty.
I don't know how I can make the question any easier, I thought it's simple. These consumers (which represent the majority) don't get the 3 year standard CPU warranty nor the extended warranty which intel initially stated on their website they'll cover but later removed. Instead of adding two years and making it a big deal, including tray CPU's would've been better for everyone and I asked if you'd agree.
edit: oh and i mentioned some cases you ignore, like a few devs and server farms detailing their issues with Intel RMA. Do you honestly think they haven't messed up RMA at all? Strange.
But with all that said, intel announced that a similar extension is on the works for tray cpus as well. Not that that will appease anyone of course, people will still be complaining on this and other forums. Theyll find a reason, im sure.And there are also many cases that intel exchanged multiple (and I really mean MULTIPLE) chips for server farms. These are all the definition of anecdotes. If you want to be more specific and send me something more particular id be glad.
There are a few issues. First, most retailers will not offer refunds in the US months after purchase. He got lucky, not everyone is. And you have to understand that refunds are very much something one might want in this case. Then there's the case of Intel being incorrect and has nothing to do with thermal paste hiding the serial number like you quote. He mentioned the TIM being on the side and is absolutely not a case of denying RMA. Intel also quoted incorrect SN's for his CPU's and a whole heap of stuff happened which I won't get into but you get the picture. The process was a whole heap of mess and the retailers bailed him out (when they weren't obliged to).
The problem is, you are not the designated RMA defender for Intel. There WILL be failed RMA cases, it would happen to anyone and seems very much the case that Intel messed it up here and will mess up in the future as well. Does that mean they are denying it to everyone? No. But you cant individually defend every single case and say "oh no Intel was right". In many cases, they weren't. And that's fine.
Your argument of 'what applies to any other product applies to Intel as well'? If that's your stance, sure and we'll agree to disagree, because others aren't designing chips that are failing. I think otherwise; if you've designed a product that lasts much less than what it should, you shouldn't just put out a relatively useless public statement of warranty extension that doesn't affect most of their users. You should disclose batch numbers affected by oxidisation, you should put out a tool that actually tests for stability (Intel's tool is laughably useless as it shows CPU's are stable when they're not) and whenever that test fails, there should be an RMA issued regardless of whether the CPU is tray or boxed. There's other stuff they can do but these at the bare minimum would make it right. The two year extension does next to nothing.
Of course there will be failed RMAs just as there are with every single company. Unless intel rejects RMAs (RMAs that should have gone through, obviously) at a higher rate than other companies I don't see what the point of spamming "intel rejects rmas "on every thread on every forum is. Cause i've read that comment, I don't even know how many times. More than 3 just today just in this forum.A product failing after the warranty expires is a product that lasted as much as it should. Unless we mean something different by "should", im not sure what your point is. If a product SHOULD last longer than it's warranty then shouldn't it also be covered by a lengthier warranty? For example there are PSU manafacturers that have 10 year warranties. So sure, I expect one such PSU should last for 10 years.
They extended the warranty and a patch is on the way for this month. I don't know why you feel this is next to nothing.