The i5 13600 and i5 14600 should be on the list as they're both 65w, according to Intel all of 13th and 14th gen are affected.
The statement from Intel saying people that had an unsuccessful rma claims can contact customer support sounds bad. It sounds more like oops they got caught try the RMA again and you might get approved. IMO it seems like Intel is doing the bare minimum, I think they need to apologize for denying returns and send emails to customers who previously got denied requests.

LycanwolfenThe ammount of issues these CPU's have, I glad I never got one. I have one of the last CPU's from Intel before the Stupid P and E core ones came out. Pure 8 core 16 thread.

I wish intel would stop with the E core and just produce a 16 Core to match AMD offerings.

What gen do you have?? My latest Intel is 10310u

""There have been no denied RMA requests for Intel processors, but for all those that were denied you can request RMA again."

remixedcatThat's the most contradiction I've ever seen

Thank you, it's intentional. There have been numerous posts of people that claim all reports of denied RMA requests of Intel CPUs are more or less suspect, fake, not about degradation at all etc...

So if you have a faulty cpu, do you still have to sent it to Intel before a replacement will be sent out? Last time I tried to RMA they said it could take a few weeks to get a replacement, this is really unacceptable. Intel Support confirmed my cpu was indeed faulty

Hecate91The i5 13600 and i5 14600 should be on the list as they're both 65w, according to Intel all of 13th and 14th gen are affected.
The statement from Intel saying people that had an unsuccessful rma claims can contact customer support sounds bad. It sounds more like oops they got caught try the RMA again and you might get approved. IMO it seems like Intel is doing the bare minimum, I think they need to apologize for denying returns and send emails to customers who previously got denied requests.

Intel later shared some deeper knowledge that apart from =>65W TDP condition, the chips with more than 1.25 MB L2 cache per P-Core and 2 MB L2 cache per E-core cluster are affected. That excludes i5-13600 as well as i5-14500 - they are Alder Lake based, whereas i5-14600 is Raptor Lake based (according to cache details) and is NOT on the list of the affected CPUs provided by Intel.

As far as I know, no information was yet anywhere given on topic whether less cache may save the CPUs from degradation (burning the ring bus). Alder Lake seems to be resistant to the ring bus burning problem, since it operates at lower voltages than Raptor Lake CPUs. As far as I know there is no evidence that Alder Lake burns as well, might take some years to degrade (if it degrades).

LittleBroWhat about i5-14500 and i5-14600? They have 65W TDP, 6+8 cores.

i5-14500 specs
i5-14600 specs

Okay, 14500 (and lower SKUs) might be based on Alder Lake - that's 11.5 MB total L2 cache
14600, however, is based on Raptor Lake - that's 20 MB total L2 cache. Why is 14600 not listed?

Edit: 14600 is the same silicon as 14600K with lowered clocks and that equals to lowered TDP.
So 14600K is listed but the 14600 not, even thought it is clear that 14600 must be affected as well (but maybe will degrade much slower than 14600K).
They really are living on the edge.

These i5's are a crapshoot. For example, the i5-13400F has been known to come in both Alder Lake C0 with Golden Cove P-cores (SSpec SRMBN) or Raptor Lake B0 (SSpec SRMBG) variants, the Raptor Lake version presumably has Raptor Cove cores, although I do not know if they retain the increased cache per-core from that architecture.

Intel just decided to release whatever and name it all Raptor Lake down to giving these many times re-released and rebranded Alder Lake chips the Raptor Lake code name (and they are NOT Raptor Lake parts) - which is causing such massive confusion, especially with things as they stand. It's basically false advertising.

They are physically different, here's a photo of both of them side by side, from this review. Basically since Intel just decided to straight up lie about the products they're selling, if your chip has C0 or H0 core stepping it's an Alder Lake part, if it's got B0 it's a Raptor Lake part.



Amongst other last-minute and post-launch decisions Intel took regarding 12th to 14th Gen CPUs, if you are in the market for an Alder Lake processor that is capable of executing AVX-512 instructions, look for an i5-12600K, i7-12700K or i9-12900K which contain the old round Intel logo instead of the new square one as seen on the picture above. This should clear any and all confusion regarding the crap Intel made here.



If your chip's Intel logo is round, congratulations, it's probably AVX-512 capable.

Dr. DroThese i5's are a crapshoot. For example, the i5-13400F has been known to come in both Alder Lake C0 with Golden Cove P-cores (SSpec SRMBN) or Raptor Lake B0 (SSpec SRMBG) variants, the Raptor Lake version presumably has Raptor Cove cores, although I do not know if they retain the increased cache per-core from that architecture.

Intel just decided to release whatever and name it all Raptor Lake down to giving these many times re-released and rebranded Alder Lake chips the Raptor Lake code name (and they are NOT Raptor Lake parts) - which is causing such massive confusion, especially with things as they stand. It's basically false advertising.

They are physically different, here's a photo of both of them side by side, from this review. Basically since Intel just decided to straight up lie about the products they're selling, if your chip has C0 or H0 core stepping it's an Alder Lake part, if it's got B0 it's a Raptor Lake part.

So with those lower tier Intel CPUs, you are kind of buying a pig in the poke.
I guess they tried to reuse partially defective Raptor Cove cores which did not make it to a higher tier CPU?

LittleBroSo with those lower tier Intel CPUs, you are kind of buying a pig in the poke.
I guess they tried to reuse partially defective Raptor Cove cores which did not make it to a higher tier CPU?

Yeah, that's it. The "complete" chip is the i9-13900K and its otherwise identical variants (locked or unlocked 13th/14th i9), then binning starts to shave down on hardware that has defects, 14700K has an e-core cluster disabled, 13700K has two, 13 and 14600K have 2 P units and 2 E clusters disabled, -F further disables graphics. i5-13/14600 (non-K) and below are supposed to be Alder Lake C0 silicon (it is physically smaller), with the exception of the -90F models that are Chinese specific versions that use the larger silicon and have more cache. Until now, that is. Intel decided to muddy the waters on the i5-1x500 and below by just mixing it all up, the Core i3's, Pentium Gold and "Intel Processor" lines are all Alder Lake, including the Intel Processor 300 which replaced the Pentium Gold branding entirely. They are documented, advertised and marketed as Raptor Lake, but they are not Raptor Lake parts and do not contain Raptor Cove P-cores or any specific feature to Raptor silicon.

Dr. DroThese i5's are a crapshoot. For example, the i5-13400F has been known to come in both Alder Lake C0 with Golden Cove P-cores (SSpec SRMBN) or Raptor Lake B0 (SSpec SRMBG) variants, the Raptor Lake version presumably has Raptor Cove cores, although I do not know if they retain the increased cache per-core from that architecture.

Intel just decided to release whatever and name it all Raptor Lake down to giving these many times re-released and rebranded Alder Lake chips the Raptor Lake code name (and they are NOT Raptor Lake parts) - which is causing such massive confusion, especially with things as they stand. It's basically false advertising.

They are physically different, here's a photo of both of them side by side, from this review. Basically since Intel just decided to straight up lie about the products they're selling, if your chip has C0 or H0 core stepping it's an Alder Lake part, if it's got B0 it's a Raptor Lake part.



Amongst other last-minute and post-launch decisions Intel took regarding 12th to 14th Gen CPUs, if you are in the market for an Alder Lake processor that is capable of executing AVX-512 instructions, look for an i5-12600K, i7-12700K or i9-12900K which contain the old round Intel logo instead of the new square one as seen on the picture above. This should clear any and all confusion regarding the crap Intel made here.



If your chip's Intel logo is round, congratulations, it's probably AVX-512 capable.

jeez they can't even organize product types and are such a mess w 2 different core variants for the same model... that's gonna make it harder on everyone... intel's laziness will bite them in the end

Dr. Droif it's got B0 it's a Raptor Lake part.

it's got BO so it stinks lol

PurSpyk!!So if you have a faulty cpu, do you still have to sent it to Intel before a replacement will be sent out? Last time I tried to RMA they said it could take a few weeks to get a replacement, this is really unacceptable. Intel Support confirmed my cpu was indeed faulty

In my case, in Europe, 3 weeks ago, it took under 4 days. But I might have been lucky. Officially, they say "it may take upto 5-7 business days to be completed from the time you submit the faulty unit".