Intel Isolates Root Cause of Raptor Lake Stability Issues to a Faulty eTVB Microcode Algorithm

[InVasMani]

Only the i9's have thermal velocity boost. i7's and below have the standard turbo boost.


Depends what you mean by affected, the microcode is a thing on every CPU, but the microcode update should effectively "patch" the problem.

Does every single 14900 show the symptom? Dont know, I think silicon lottery may have a bearing on it.

From where I sit if you was to buy a 14900(k) you have a few options if you paranoid about it.
1 - Disable TVB in the bios. You lose some potential peak performance. Will still have standard turbo boost.
2 - Apply intel stock settings, May lose performance in heavy threaded loads, hit limits much easier.
3 - Update to the latest microcode, May lose some peak performance but not as much as disabling TVB.

I thought I had seen i7's mentioned as well when the subject first surfaced, but maybe not. If the problem is TVB that's a bit of a bitter pill to swallow for i9 owners. It's better overall though for Intel if it was only isolated to i9's I suppose though those are also the most expensive chips they sell and hardest to produce in the event of a recall rather than a patch.

 

[trparky]

From where I sit if you was to buy a 14900(k) you have a few options if you paranoid about it.
1 - Disable TVB in the bios. You lose some potential peak performance. Will still have standard turbo boost.
2 - Apply intel stock settings, May lose performance in heavy threaded loads, hit limits much easier.
3 - Update to the latest microcode, May lose some peak performance but not as much as disabling TVB.

If you do any of the above, you're effectively losing out on what Intel promised to you as a buyer of the Core i9. If you ask me, that's their fault; they knowingly pushed their chips to the breaking point and one step further all to squeeze out that last bit of performance.

 

[Broken Processor]

Intel again shows us how to save face while lowering performance of affected products.

 

[Tomorrow]

Intel again shows us how to save face while lowering performance of affected products.

I learned that lesson with Sandy Bridge when Spectre/Meltdown mitigations severely dropped performance. Since then i've been buying only Zen and thus far no performance degradation. I just cant trust Intel's claims or that they wont nerf performance down the line.

 

[AusWolf]

i just upgraded a few days ago YES i was looking for a 13900k not the 14900k because its the same as 13900k best i found is $400 for the 13900K, But when i saw the 12900KS NEW factory sealed for $200 out the door and and it was just 1 mile away pickup then i said ok thats the way i will go.

That's a great deal, but it's not what I meant. What I mean is, now with the 12900KS in your system, you're not gonna think about upgrading to 13th or 14th gen, are you?

 

[InVasMani]

I got the impression that they bought 12900KS in place of spending more on 13th/14th gen because at that price it was a pretty exceptional deal. Based on that I'm guessing it's doubtful other than 2nd hand market later down the road if they become dirt cheap and can stave off a rebuild well enough. Seems more likely they'd put the money saved towards a GPU or more memory or something else.

 

[Sunny and 75]

Translation : Sorry our CPUs just can't keep up without super aggressive on-the-edge tuning that breaks the CPUs IRL.

This^

 

[Dr_b_]

Nice non biased commet there, well done.

Its true though, intel can't compete in any other way except by cranking up the power and heat, then saying "look we won! We are the best!"

 

[trparky]

Its true though, intel can't compete in any other way except by cranking up the power and heat, then saying "look we won! We are the best!"

Yeah, but at what cost? In a lot of cases, our electricity bills and potential future silicon degradation.

 

[matar]

What? No love for AMD?

That's a great deal, but it's not what I meant. What I mean is, now with the 12900KS in your system, you're not gonna think about upgrading to 13th or 14th gen, are you?

So true i wont.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Its true though, intel can't compete in any other way except by cranking up the power and heat, then saying "look we won! We are the best!"

Intel were competing though, AMD had to resort to slapping some cache on the top to compete. Without the 3Dvcache it's AMD who would be behind. In a straight non Vcahce contest regardless of power Intel is better in everything.

 

[AusWolf]

Intel were competing though, AMD had to resort to slapping some cache on the top to compete. Without the 3Dvcache it's AMD who would be behind. In a straight non Vcahce contest regardless of power Intel is better in everything.

1. That's only true for gaming. The world doesn't revolve around gaming, you know.
2. Does being ahead or behind by a couple of percent in gaming performance really matter?

 

[Yraggul666]

Call me a tinfoil hat nutter, i think this was not a mistake, i think this was done on purpose to be able to top AMD in some cases.
Their power/boost guidelines have been unclear for years at this point.

 

[AusWolf]

Call me a tinfoil hat nutter, i think this was not a mistake, i think this was done on purpose to be able to top AMD in some cases.
Their power/boost guidelines have been unclear for years at this point.

I don't think that they were aware of the root of the issues until now (they probably didn't even care considering they tried to blame it on motherboard makers), but I agree that it's a result of chasing benchmarks.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Call me a tinfoil hat nutter, i think this was not a mistake, i think this was done on purpose to be able to top AMD in some cases.
Their power/boost guidelines have been unclear for years at this point.

It's pretty obvious they used power consumption to stay competitive. We see it often enough, when we push engineering to its limit something eventually has to give. It was just a means to buy time until they can hopefully get something more reasonable out the door.

 

[chrcoluk]

If you do any of the above, you're effectively losing out on what Intel promised to you as a buyer of the Core i9. If you ask me, that's their fault; they knowingly pushed their chips to the breaking point and one step further all to squeeze out that last bit of performance.

The fact its stable at intel stock means intel is not the sole culprit, I wont change my view on that personally, board vendors want to sell motherboards so they differentiate by applying their own default pre tuned configurations.

If you buy a CPU they promise maximum specified turbo clocks (which are not assured, turbo clocks have never ever been assured on any GPU or CPU product in my lifetime), Review results are not a promise.

Personally I wouldnt be buying a raptor lake (or refresh) i9 chip.

 

[trsttte]

Intel were competing though, AMD had to resort to slapping some cache on the top to compete. Without the 3Dvcache it's AMD who would be behind. In a straight non Vcahce contest regardless of power Intel is better in everything.

"AMD had to resort to a technological improvement to make a better product, without this improvement they would be behind"

You sound ridiculous

 

[FoulOnWhite]

"AMD had to resort to a technological improvement to make a better product, without this improvement they would be behind"

You sound ridiculous

Yeah right, using someone elses tech to improve their product, you funny doctor jones. AMD design and make nothing, at least intel actually design all and make some of their own stuff. If Intel have a problem with something, they can rejig build and test in house, What do AMD do, get in touch with TSMC

Does being ahead or behind by a couple of percent in gaming performance really matter?

Well it does seem to be on TPU anyway, how many times are AMD totued as the best gaming CPU, and what else? Intel beats them on everything else. Who games 24/7? So why buy a CPU that is the best at gaming and not at the other stuff you spend more time doing.

All these replies to my comment do is show the true anti intel sentiment on TPU

 

[AusWolf]

Well it does seem to be on TPU anyway, how many times are AMD totued as the best gaming CPU, and what else? Intel beats them on everything else. Who games 24/7? So why buy a CPU that is the best at gaming and not at the other stuff you spend more time doing.

All these replies to my comment do is show the true anti intel sentiment on TPU

Why would you buy a CPU that's good for "anything else" when you only use it for gaming? It's not being anti-Intel, it's just called buying what you need.

If you look at my main system specs, you'll find all AMD because I find it to be better value than the competition and better suited for my needs these days. My two HTPCs and my netbook don't need to be cutting edge, so they're all Intel + Nvidia (as it was better value at that time). If you still get anti-Intel vibes from me, that's your imagination I'm afraid.

 

[SL2]

All these replies to my comment do is show the true anti intel sentiment on TPU

No, it shows that you're trying to defend Intel no matter what, thread after thread.

EIGHTEEN months after the launch of the 13900K, Intel has yet to come up with a solution for a problem that end users had to point out.

Still, running Intel CPU's with that high power consumption is innovation compared to adding cache?

If you want defend Intel, this is not the thread for it. They've taken zero responsibility so far. Stop feeling sad in the eye, you brought this on yourself.

 

[trsttte]

Yeah right, using someone elses tech to improve their product, you funny doctor jones. AMD design and make nothing, at least intel actually design all and make some of their own stuff.

How is it not their own tech? They are the ones to have the idea to add cache on top of the cpu and designed a working model of that idea, then used TSMC fabrication technology to put that into practice. Just like Intel is doing with foveros and emib except intel is vertically integrated with their own fabs so they have to design both parts of the solution. If AMD did nothing and just used someone else's tech how come they're the only ones doing it?

If you want to use that stupid argument, well neither of them does anything, they're all just using what ASML makes possible with their machines, it's a ridiculous idea.

 

[Tomorrow]

Yeah right, using someone elses tech to improve their product, you funny doctor jones.

You make it sound like AMD sneaked in the the middle of the night and stole TSMC's secrets.
Also as if Intel makes everything in house - they dont.

AMD design and make nothing, at least intel actually design all and make some of their own stuff.

And how is that working out for Intel? Not very well considering how much TSMC's process nodes they use in their next desktop and mobile series.
Not to mention their dGPU's that are exclusively made by TSMC.

If Intel have a problem with something, they can rejig build and test in house,

And AMD cant? Look at some GN's videos from AMD labs. They most certainly do in house testing.

What do AMD do, get in touch with TSMC

Depends on the issue. Obviously not even Intel can produce a new revision or a re-spin in house if it's TSMC made silicon.

Well it does seem to be on TPU anyway, how many times are AMD totued as the best gaming CPU, and what else?

What do you mean by "what else?" How about better security, lower power consumption, better platform longevity, less restrictions on cheaper chipsets etc.

Intel beats them on everything else.

At what cost and power? And by how much? Single digit percentages mostly at the expense of 2-3x the power.

Who games 24/7? So why buy a CPU that is the best at gaming and not at the other stuff you spend more time doing.

I wasn't aware that X3D chips were no good for anything outside gaming. You make it sound like they're Bulldozers when it comes to non gaming tasks. In reality i doubt most people would notice the difference in blind test between X3D and 14th gen in boot time, application performance etc.

All these replies to my comment do is show the true anti intel sentiment on TPU

It's Anti-BS sentiment. Don't think that people here have not criticized AMD (justly) when they have deserved it.
This thread is about Intel's screwup.

 

[Caring1]

It's pretty obvious they used power consumption to stay competitive. We see it often enough, when we push engineering to its limit something eventually has to give. It was just a means to buy time until they can hopefully get something more reasonable out the door.

It's not the first time Intel has done something shady just so they can say they are the best in Benchmarks, then when mitigations are implemented and performance drops, they then claim their next gen is x% better than the last, and the cycle repeats.

 

[Sunny and 75]

they probably didn't even care considering they tried to blame it on motherboard makers

Exactly the case here.

running Intel CPU's with that high power consumption is innovation compared to adding cache?

This^


Hope Intel learns and that they won't make the same mistake again with Arrow Lake going forward. Fingers crossed!

Otherwise it'll be like the GPU market share. By that I mean, it'll be 90% AMD and 10% Intel if this behavior continues.

And that does NOT bode well, for competition's sake. We need competition to drive innovation and of course, for better prices.

 

[phints]

It would something radical from Intel to go with them for my next build. My current Ryzen build is almost 4 years old and due for an upgrade. It runs cool and quiet, had a couple issues with the first 6 months of Windows 11 release, but who didn't at that time? After that was sorted everyhting is back to running flawless. Considering a Ryzen 9700X for my next build.

Intel needs a 3-5x performance per watt increase for me to go back (for real, just look at 7800X3D benchmarks right here at TPU, Intel is appalling in efficiency). A new architecture and moving away from their ancient lithography to Intel 20A might might do it.

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i7-14700k/images/efficiency-gaming.png