Alderon Games claims that substantial numbers of Intel 13th Gen and 14th Gen chips are defective

[chrcoluk]

I will confess to not watching all of that GN video, I have attention span issues on videos and do prefer a wall of text.

I watched enough of it though that clearly GN and L1 think this is way beyond bios misconfiguration or a TVB fault, they think its a manufacturing defect, GN apparently have a large Intel customer as a source, and given all the data that was said in the video this large Intel customer would appear to have inner knowledge of Intels fabrication process, maybe Intel share this kind of stuff with big customers, or maybe the customer has speculated based on their own knowledge and reverse engineering.

My own view is Intel need to make a statement at the very least as its got to the point now, youtubers are just pumping out videos with all sorts of speculation and statements from some industry players, and its not a good look for Intel to just sit there silent.

Problem is I do still see this as mostly entities speculating, perhaps Intel are banking on that, or perhaps its not as big a problem as is made out, and dodgy bios's are a smokescreen. Sadly we dont have data from bios's with the TVB patch and also using baseline settings. It will be a while before thats available, if ever, but its content to be pushed out, so speculation it is.

Of course if there is something dodgy with the chips, again speculation, then this content at least makes it harder for Intel to brush it under the carpet and move on.

--

I did have my own view on what might be the problem, a guy on reddit was desperate for me to say it but I will say it here, Alder Lake CPUs have a much lower ring clock when e-cores are active, on Raptor lake this was boosted quite significantly. I assume a higher ring core clock also means a higher ring clock voltage, Which is why not long ago I posted info on this on this forum (might even be an earlier post in this thread).

 

[Sunny and 75]

They'd do anything just to be 1 or 2 percent ahead in the benchmarks and that's how they got themselves in this situation. You can't fault them, TBH.

 

[Vario]

yep, it is. My concern is just about future upgrades. I opted for a 12600K last year for the price/perf ratio. 130 bucks decent z690 and 140 bucks cpu, with the possibility of going 14700k for a nice upgrade in 2-3 years. Now, 12900k is the best I can go for...I feel bad for the choice I made, even tho I don't need any upgrade rn.

Its possible if this is a real thing, Intel will release a new revision of 14th gen that doesn't have these issues.
Also nothing wrong with 12900K, its a great processor for me.

 

[mkppo]

So turns out that expert from level1tech that made all the fuss about the intel cpus crashing, yeah, doesn't know what a VID table is....do with that what you will

Source or that's BS. Wendell is literally one of the most knowledgeable guys out there. Guys like Gordon ask him for knowledge, someone who's been in the industry from as far back as I can remember (Pentium 400Mhz days FYI)...Wendell has such a reputation that large server farms and game devs give him access to their error logs and systems. The discoveries he's made with these chips needed months of work and a lot of knowledge to even be able to deduce the fact that it's the CPU's. He's literally done it for free, for the benefit of Intel users and others alike, but then his credentials get questioned. Jeez. This shit really gets on my nerves. I mean, the smaller system integrators and game developers turned to him for help, and he single handedly gave them the solution here and now trying to figure out a root cause.

I remember some dude here a few months back questioning Ian Cuttress's credentials and now Wendell. I guess when people's favorite brands get rightfully attacked, it's a knee jerk reaction to blame the person speaking up. For me though, i am just grateful to have these two and a few others actually reviewing stuff. Learned a lot and still do and seems like i'm not the only one

It's not a claim. All wafers have a failure rate. Doesn't matter what minds think about it, hardware isn't perfect and neither is fab process.

Again, I say it again, manufacturers of processors try and aim for under 2% failure rates. Both parties.

I'm not fond of Intels Management Engine. Their issue could simply be from this. Or lack of the user/company updating firmware when need be.

I don't have a 14900K. If you are quoting me, read my other posts please. I gave a list of 4 different raptor lake chips and why I don't have 900 series chips.

You literally made a claim that Ryzens have a higher than acceptable failure rate, and linked to a BS article. Then when it got refuted, you said it's not your job to verify links and you just gave it because they were requested. I can go on to quote your initial few posts dismissing Ryzen and making all sorts of false claims, but they were so wildly off reality that most of us just decided to ignore it. But your attempt to spread BS or just plain ignorance was quickly shut down.

Yes we all know every CPU degrades, the question here is what is an acceptable timeframe. Anything less than a year under full load is way way lower than what's acceptable. That's what we are talking about here. Because that's what is happening with these chips.

If you don't have 14900K, i'm not sure why you were talking about your raptor lake being stable etc. We are talking about the top end SKU's having issues so if you have anything else that isn't really relevant. The issue here is that 13/14900K's are mostly failing, and that's the topic at hand.

edit: @fevgatos : I found the source of your claim of Wendell not knowing what a VID table is on reddit. I'm not sure why you had to post it here because it was from a random person trying to screenshot a conversation between buildzoid and Wendell and making a pathetic and useless attempt at a personal attack. I'm not sure if you should be reposting stuff like that here and I see why you didn't post the source of your claims. Remember - he deals with things far more complex than what a basic voltage table that exists in a consumer level board

 

[InVasMani]

I think my issue was mostly V/F and/or vdroop, but still gotta bump up P core ratio to stock x55/x56 and test that. The power limits might've also caused some instability. I think I was just being a bit paranoid and had a bit of panic attack given all the concerns surrounding degradation. Pretty sure it was just a few settings set too low to be a bit conservative on power draw and usage at least once I dropped the memory MT/s down to support 4DPC 4400MT/s. I just know 7zip is a particular workload that's sensitive to stability.

These chips are really interconnected so small power limit or undervolt or V/F offset voltage change can easily throw something off at load which I believe was the case for me. I was simply trying to rule out if it was ring, memory, or something else like being a bit underfed in terms of voltage/power limits. I think that's the thing with a chip like 14700K and like 14900K in particular. Like the cores you insert and at higher binned frequencies they easily a system can become unstable.

That's also why MB makers need to stop playing games with defaults and auto on important settings. That's not even a Intel issue that's a MB problem they do the same stuff with AMD and they need to start having default's and auto's actually operate like defaults. If they want it to OC or OV they need to start clearly labeling it as such. Like there is no reason auto should pump the ring up to x50 when x46 is the default. That's something that could easily be preventable by Asus and should be. Intel should also be listing ring ratio and 2DPC/4DPC memory support more readily on the main SKU part of product pages and some other key settings and voltages. Stop burying that information somewhere on the website in some archeologist discovery hunt oh look at this artifact discover a voltage spec setting buried someplace that took me 10 decades to unearth and uncover.

They want us to follow guidance, but then scatter it around making it hard to follow in the first place. I mean I can even understand a bit why MB makers don't follow guidance perfectly since they don't make it simple and easy to do so. You practically need to sequence DNA to figure out where Intel stored a particular spec setting on it's website. Enough with the da vinci code bs make it simple and dead easy to find and follow.

The deafening silence is absolutely frustrating to the end user that's concerned about their hardware possibly going up in smoke because maybe their hardware is degrading quickly or not and we don't really know definitively much of anything other than what can be gleaned from some crash reports that look damning. I seems really tone deaf of Intel to not better address the matter. We're just left in the blind right now for the most part. We've been told is something about TVB, but yet we didn't fix other prevailing issues that we also can't or won't elaborate upon.

I don't even think Intel has set the record straight and clarified if it impacts just the 13900K/14900K SKU's or if the problems goes deeper and impacts other 13th and 14th gen parts. I can't imagine why anyone would have reason for concern though with them making it abundantly easy to be readily concerned from all fronts.

We'd be less concerned if we weren't left in the dark so much or we'd be more concerned because there is rationalized reason to be a bit concerned.

 

[Klemc]

I think my issue was mostly V/F and/or vdroop, but still gotta bump up P core ratio to stock x55/x56 and test that. The power limits might've also caused some instability. I think I was just being a bit paranoid and had a bit of panic attack given all the concerns surrounding degradation. Pretty sure it was just a few settings set too low to be a bit conservative on power draw and usage at least once I dropped the memory MT/s down to support 4DPC 4400MT/s. I just know 7zip is a particular workload that's sensitive to stability.

These chips are really interconnected so small power limit or undervolt or V/F offset voltage change can easily throw something off at load which I believe was the case for me. I was simply trying to rule out if it was ring, memory, or something else like being a bit underfed in terms of voltage/power limits. I think that's the thing with a chip like 14700K and like 14900K in particular. Like the cores you insert and at higher binned frequencies they easily a system can become unstable.

That's also why MB makers need to stop playing games with defaults and auto on important settings. That's not even a Intel issue that's a MB problem they do the same stuff with AMD and they need to start having default's and auto's actually operate like defaults. If they want it to OC or OV they need to start clearly labeling it as such. Like there is no reason auto should pump the ring up to x50 when x46 is the default. That's something that could easily be preventable by Asus and should be. Intel should also be listing ring ratio and 2DPC/4DPC memory support more readily on the main SKU part of product pages and some other key settings and voltages. Stop burying that information somewhere on the website in some archeologist discovery hunt oh look at this artifact discover a voltage spec setting buried someplace that took me 10 decades to unearth and uncover.

They want us to follow guidance, but then scatter it around making it hard to follow in the first place. I mean I can even understand a bit why MB makers don't follow guidance perfectly since they don't make it simple and easy to do so. You practically need to sequence DNA to figure out where Intel stored a particular spec setting on it's website. Enough with the da vinci code bs make it simple and dead easy to find and follow.

The deafening silence is absolutely frustrating to the end user that's concerned about their hardware possibly going up in smoke because maybe their hardware is degrading quickly or not and we don't really know definitively much of anything other than what can be gleaned from some crash reports that look damning. I seems really tone deaf of Intel to not better address the matter. We're just left in the blind right now for the most part. We've been told is something about TVB, but yet we didn't fix other prevailing issues that we also can't or won't elaborate upon.

I don't even think Intel has set the record straight and clarified if it impacts just the 13900K/14900K SKU's or if the problems goes deeper and impacts other 13th and 14th gen parts. I can't imagine why anyone would have reason for concern though with them making it abundantly easy to be readily concerned from all fronts.

We'd be less concerned if we weren't left in the dark so much or we'd be more concerned because there is rationalized reason to be a bit concerned.

But, the MB builders/sellers have no right to do that, set non-defaults to defaults values, i want court for that... and money.

Am i wrong it's outlaw ?.. i will not read 1.00.000.000 pages of Intel/Amd policies (or cluf or whatever it's called)...

 

[InVasMani]

I was suggesting they adhere to defaults more properly. Defaults should in fact default. It's not a hard thing to grapple with.

x46 default versus x50 auto is actually a bigger overclock deviation than what Steve nearly walked on water crying about with a BCLK deviation of about 2MHz. There was some validity to his general concerns too about BCLK it really should fall within +/-1 like 1MHz. It's certainly not the only concern though. Like is it any wonder when every other default setting isn't adhering to default specifications by the MB maker that something might not be stable somewhere!!?

MB makers aren't exempt from fault here irrespective of what the root cause is because they've taken dubious actions in numerous area's which are still valid concerns and issues. People deserve hardware that works out of box at default. You couldn't even effectively tell the MB to set them properly out of box and that's stupid. Not everyone is tech savvy or as tech savvy and up to date on the latest tech standards that evolve and change over time.

Which if you don't believe me compare them across a few generation and you'll understand a lot can change in a lot of different area's of the bios. Overall today it's much more sophisticated than 5 years ago or a decade ago or two decades ago. The those bios were so much more straight forward and simple, but also more limited as well.

These are major corporations they really don't deserve a free pass on these subjects. These issues need to be addressed properly these aren't kids making simple mistakes. It's adults running companies making poor decisions.

 

[Hecate91]

Wait, if the Ryzen 7000 failures burning up was an Asus problem because they set voltages too high (it wasn't just asus btw), isn't it the same with Intel? Mobos giving too much voltage?

The problem was mainly Asus boards though, a few other manufacturers probably set voltages too high and I think they are partially to blame here for setting voltages too high, though it is way beyond a voltage issue with Intel. But my point wasn't about what happened with AMD 7000 series, it was how AMD decided to handle resolving it. Those here in denial keep focusing on what happened with AMD which is not the point, or trying to discredit those who have done their research, Nvidia found the issue 3 months ago, and there's been reports of games crashing since 6 months ago. Setting voltages lower only delays the instability if the cpu is affected by corrosion.

I agree, I don't care about tinkering with settings to get a 200w+ cpu (like the 7950x) to use less power, that's why I buy non k and T intel chips.

Your choice, but if I wanted nerfed performance low clock chips I might as well buy a crappy prebuilt Dell or HP system. And I definitely would avoid anything from Intel until they decide to fix their chips, even then I'd wait at least another year to see if they are stable.

 

[Dr. Dro]

The problem was mainly Asus boards though, a few other manufacturers probably set voltages too high and I think they are partially to blame here for setting voltages too high, though it is way beyond a voltage issue with Intel. But my point wasn't about what happened with AMD 7000 series, it was how AMD decided to handle resolving it. Those here in denial keep focusing on what happened with AMD which is not the point, or trying to discredit those who have done their research, Nvidia found the issue 3 months ago, and there's been reports of games crashing since 6 months ago. Setting voltages lower only delays the instability if the cpu is affected by corrosion.

Your choice, but if I wanted nerfed performance low clock chips I might as well buy a crappy prebuilt Dell or HP system. And I definitely would avoid anything from Intel until they decide to fix their chips, even then I'd wait at least another year to see if they are stable.

No, it wasn't. The issue that caused the Ryzen 7000 series to catch fire was AGESA-level (as usual) and as such, exclusively in AMD's court. Chips fried in motherboards from multiple manufacturers back then, and all of them scrambled to release updates. Let's not rewrite history for the sake of a multi-billion-dollar corporation. It was fixed with an AGESA update and it affected every single motherboard model out there.

We have root caused the issue and have already distributed a new AGESA that puts measures in place on certain power rails on AM5 motherboards to prevent the CPU from operating beyond its specification limits, including a cap on SOC voltage at 1.3V. None of these changes affect the ability of our Ryzen 7000 Series processors to overclock memory using EXPO or XMP kits or boost performance using PBO technology.
We expect all of our ODM partners to release new BIOS for their AM5 boards over the next few days. We recommend all users to check their motherboard manufacturers website and update their BIOS to ensure their system has the most up to date software for their processor.
Anyone whose CPU may have been impacted by this issue should contact AMD customer support. Our customer service team is aware of the situation and prioritizing these cases.

AMD statement updated at the bottom: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1882...atement-on-reported-ryzen-7000-burnout-issues
Reddit megathread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/12yq4yb
GN videos on the subject:

The ASUS "issue" is that their Crosshair boards had OCP set way too high. Crosshair, Zenith, Maximus and Rampage motherboards are IMHO ultra-high-end boards for people who know what they're doing. Regular folks shouldn't even buy these in general to begin with, a Strix-E motherboard will likely be a better purchase in 98% of cases.

I was suggesting they adhere to defaults more properly. Defaults should in fact default. It's not a hard thing to grapple with.

x46 default versus x50 auto is actually a bigger overclock deviation than what Steve nearly walked on water crying about with a BCLK deviation of about 2MHz. There was some validity to his general concerns too about BCLK it really should fall within +/-1 like 1MHz. It's certainly not the only concern though. Like is it any wonder when every other default setting isn't adhering to default specifications by the MB maker that something might not be stable somewhere!!?

MB makers aren't exempt from fault here irrespective of what the root cause is because they've taken dubious actions in numerous area's which are still valid concerns and issues. People deserve hardware that works out of box at default. You couldn't even effectively tell the MB to set them properly out of box and that's stupid. Not everyone is tech savvy or as tech savvy and up to date on the latest tech standards that evolve and change over time.

Which if you don't believe me compare them across a few generation and you'll understand a lot can change in a lot of different area's of the bios. Overall today it's much more sophisticated than 5 years ago or a decade ago or two decades ago. The those bios were so much more straight forward and simple, but also more limited as well.

These are major corporations they really don't deserve a free pass on these subjects. These issues need to be addressed properly these aren't kids making simple mistakes. It's adults running companies making poor decisions.

I agree, and BIOS updates with clear explanations as to what are safe settings have already begun to roll out. However, these "default safe settings" are not that different from what people have been running for years. I expect the impact to be quite minimal, the recommended - and default values still remain 253 W, and I suspect most people will follow the Intel guideline to use the "Performance" profile simply because that is what mirrors the expected behavior of the processor (and closer to reviews) rather than the fail safe setting. If you have a Special Edition processor, the "fail safe" profile is straight up unavailable, it's only the performance and extreme profiles.

 

[R0H1T]

The issue that caused the Ryzen 7000 series to catch fire was AGESA-level (as usual) and as such, exclusively in AMD's court. Chips fried in motherboards from multiple manufacturers back then, and all of them scrambled to release updates. Let's not rewrite history for the sake of a multi-billion-dollar corporation. It was fixed with an AGESA update and it affected every single motherboard model out there.

They never said what the root cause was just that they fixed it through new BIOS & AGESA versions so you're wrong about that part.

This from your linked reddit thread ~

The recommendation so far is to make sure you are running the latest BIOS for your motherboard and to make sure the CPU SoC voltage stays below 1.3v during load and idle when using a EXPO/XMP/DOCP memory kit. To check this you can download HWInfo64 and Prime95, both of which are free.

If your SoC voltage is over 1.3v, despite having the latest BIOS, please either disable XMP/EXPO/DOCP or manually adjust the SoC voltage in the BIOS so it stays below 1.3v.

NOTE that SoC voltage is not the same as DDR/DRAM voltage, for example, if you have a DDR5 kit with 1.35v or 1.40v, this does NOT mean your SoC voltage is 1.35-1.40v.

If you have an AM5 motherboard, please install the latest available BIOS and check back regularly to see if newer BIOS versions have been published, it is likely we will see further fixes, improvements and AGESA updates in the following weeks and months.

 

[Dr. Dro]

They never said what the root cause was just that they fixed it through new BIOS & AGESA versions so you're wrong about that part.

This from your linked reddit thread ~

What was causing the "problem" was people simply enabling XMP/EXPO and AGESA raising VSoC to unreasonable values on its own. If AGESA update fixed it, then the problem was AGESA, eh? Keep in mind, this is closed-source and only AMD develops it. Motherboard makers have a license to deploy it, but not change it.

 

[fevgatos]

Source or that's BS.

Spoiler

I didn't question anything, I just mentioned a fact that is relevant to this thread. What are you on about?

 

[R0H1T]

Then why does the reddit thread say this?

If your SoC voltage is over 1.3v, despite having the latest BIOS, please either disable XMP/EXPO/DOCP or manually adjust the SoC voltage in the BIOS so it stays below 1.3v.

I'm assuming this was after they pushed the new AGESA update. And of course if it was all due to AGESA then were all board partners & x3d users affected or not? I don't remember that being an issue with every mobo vendor.

What was causing the "problem" was people simply enabling XMP/EXPO and AGESA raising VSoC to unreasonable values on its own. If AGESA update fixed it, then the problem was AGESA, eh? Keep in mind, this is closed-source and only AMD develops it. Motherboard makers have a license to deploy it, but not change it.

AGESA updates contain a lot of things not just bug fixes, heck I got a new AGESA version for x570 some 3-4 months back.

 

[fevgatos]

What was causing the "problem" was people simply enabling XMP/EXPO and AGESA raising VSoC to unreasonable values on its own. If AGESA update fixed it, then the problem was AGESA, eh? Keep in mind, this is closed-source and only AMD develops it. Motherboard makers have a license to deploy it, but not change it.

Well they pushed those voltages too high to compete with Intel. At least they fixed it.

 

[Taraquin]

Well they pushed those voltages too high to compete with Intel. At least they fixed it.

SOC voltage does not itself affect performance*, but it will affect memory overclocking. I don't think they did it to compete with Intel as it actually lowers performance in most scenarios. Higher SOC voltage steals from thermal and powerbudget due to increases consumption and temps. A simple test on my 7800X3D shows that going from 1.28v SOC to 1.08v SOC reduces allcore powerdraw by 15W and idle consumption by around 7W. Cinebenchscores with 1.28v is a few hundred points below 1.08v SOC. Woth excellect watercooling difference will be none, but with aircooling it will. Ram however can be overclocked by 200-400MHz higher with 200mv extra.

 

[InVasMani]

People are more concerned about if their hardware is behaving properly and it's expected lifespan isn't suspect than some nonsense back and fourth banter talk about completely unrelated things. Some of the issues and concerns were raised long ago like the MB settings and shouldn't have taken this long to take more seriously at the same time, but it's a wake up call. The thing is MB makers and CPU makers ultimately would probably end up having fewer RMA if they were better about these things and consumers would generally be provided a better experience as well by their product works at default like you'd expect. Oh you mean it's working like intended out of box wow are you sure that's a good idea!!?

 

[fevgatos]

SOC voltage does not itself affect performance*, but it will affect memory overclocking. I don't think they did it to compete with Intel as it actually lowers performance in most scenarios. Higher SOC voltage steals from thermal and powerbudget due to increases consumption and temps. A simple test on my 7800X3D shows that going from 1.28v SOC to 1.08v SOC reduces allcore powerdraw by 15W and idle consumption by around 7W. Cinebenchscores with 1.28v is a few hundred points below 1.08v SOC. Woth excellect watercooling difference will be none, but with aircooling it will. Ram however can be overclocked by 200-400MHz higher with 200mv extra.

Was a joke, since most people are saying intel increases voltages to compete with amd. I'm just showing the double atandars

 

[londiste]

I watched enough of it though that clearly GN and L1 think this is way beyond bios misconfiguration or a TVB fault, they think its a manufacturing defect, GN apparently have a large Intel customer as a source, and given all the data that was said in the video this large Intel customer would appear to have inner knowledge of Intels fabrication process, maybe Intel share this kind of stuff with big customers, or maybe the customer has speculated based on their own knowledge and reverse engineering.

My own view is Intel need to make a statement at the very least as its got to the point now, youtubers are just pumping out videos with all sorts of speculation and statements from some industry players, and its not a good look for Intel to just sit there silent.

Problem is I do still see this as mostly entities speculating, perhaps Intel are banking on that, or perhaps its not as big a problem as is made out, and dodgy bios's are a smokescreen. Sadly we dont have data from bios's with the TVB patch and also using baseline settings. It will be a while before thats available, if ever, but its content to be pushed out, so speculation it is.

Of course if there is something dodgy with the chips, again speculation, then this content at least makes it harder for Intel to brush it under the carpet and move on.

--

I did have my own view on what might be the problem, a guy on reddit was desperate for me to say it but I will say it here, Alder Lake CPUs have a much lower ring clock when e-cores are active, on Raptor lake this was boosted quite significantly. I assume a higher ring core clock also means a higher ring clock voltage, Which is why not long ago I posted info on this on this forum (might even be an earlier post in this thread).

GN sources get this from Intel as they need to share this with big customers, moreso when big problems are at hand.
Intel not making a statement is because they have liability - and the sums are huge. Plus, they need a fixed strategy for what and how to do before making a statement. And at this point they do not really seem to have it figured out yet.

A large part of instabilities seem to be from what the initial findings were - too high clocks, too low voltage (because chip cannot take it because motherboard settings or a couple other reasons). Taking multiplier down to x53-x55 seems to be a working for for that. And would land Intel in hot water because advertised 5.8 or 6.0 clock speeds.

Then there is the suspicion der8auer brought up, basically the same idea as yours in the last paragraph. Ring seems to run at the same voltage with P-cores and E-cores. When P-cores boost very high and get the necessary voltages so do these other parts. And while P-cores are tested and validated with something like 1.5V the E-cores or ring might not be. And excessive voltage not validated for can degrade.

And then there is the manufacturing defect problem which is a big unknown. Although GN sources did give a timeframe - I believe it was March 2023 to April 2024 which to me sounds like Intel did find the cause in their foundry process and fixed it.

Whether and how all these relate is a good question. It could come down to one root cause or these can be a different - although interrelated - issues. Intel hopefully knows by now but it is possible that they yet do not. I would say the eventual solution will one way or another involve lowered frequencies and performance degradation related to that.

 

[Sunny and 75]

just grateful to have these two and a few others actually reviewing stuff. Learned a lot and still do and seems like i'm not the only one

You are not.

 

[Taraquin]

Was a joke, since most people are saying intel increases voltages to compete with amd. I'm just showing the double atandars

Okay

 

[Sunny and 75]

avoid anything from Intel

i5s are fine.

 

[Rabit]

i5s are fine.

Reports show that even i5 13600K also failing but at lower rate compared to i7 and i9.
On good side leaks show that intel solved oxidation issue around March of 2024 and we have in future available CPUs without this issue, on bad side in CPUs on shop shelves have this defect.

 

[Sunny and 75]

Reports show that even i5 13600K also failing but at lower rate compared to i7 and i9

13500 and 13400 SKUs seem to be doing just fine.

 

[Rabit]

13500 and 13400 SKUs seem to be doing just fine.

lower voltages extending its lifespan

 

[Sunny and 75]

lower voltages extending its lifespan

Hmm and they're essentially 12th gen (Golden Cove) but with higher L3 Cache capacity.