If it's not crashing then it's not damaged. Or if you want to look at it this way absolutely all things are damaged.
The Intel Execution in [2024]
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
The issue would be life span. While CPUs warranties (for retail anyways) are 3 years I think the common conditioned expectation is that they will last much longer than that if they pass the DOA/infant mortality phase. However with this issue it creates the uncertainity of how much an negative impact it's going to have on the CPUs lifespan, even if said CPU does currently function within spec and will upto that 3 year warranty mark.
Another aspect of this is that unless they are going to provide advanced RMAs (and even then) dealing with a core component failure like with a CPU is let's just say not very good in terms of logistics.
Another aspect of this is that unless they are going to provide advanced RMAs (and even then) dealing with a core component failure like with a CPU is let's just say not very good in terms of logistics.
Intel cooking the Ring Bus on dying 13th and 14th Gen Core CPUs, says leaker
Intel 13th Gen and 14th Gen Core CPU issues: the ring bus is getting cooked because it's fed the same rail as the P-Cores and E-Cores, says leaker.
www.tweaktown.com
Ring bus cooked?
That actually makes sense. But it's hard to tell what's true. Too bad we have to rely on leakersIntel cooking the Ring Bus on dying 13th and 14th Gen Core CPUs, says leaker
Intel 13th Gen and 14th Gen Core CPU issues: the ring bus is getting cooked because it's fed the same rail as the P-Cores and E-Cores, says leaker.
Ring bus cooked?
This statement is not true. Damage can absolutely occur without operating system failures as an immediate indicator. Electomigration and dielectric breakdown does not instantaneously result in crashes, but can absolutely precipitate them in the future. Despite what people think, solid state electronics do eventually wear out given enough time. The damage we're talking about here is accelerated wear caused by excessive voltage. It's reasonable to conclude essentially all 13th and 14th gen chips which are eligible for the new microcode have been exposed to some modicum of this accelerated wear and hence are "damaged"; the challenge is understanding if the part fail within the extant warranty period.
Your chip can very much be damaged and yet not be crashing your operating system at this moment. The two are not mutually exclusive.
As I've said if you want to look at things this way then ALL things around you are inherently "damaged". The question is will this lead to any sort of issues with them over the time you will be using them? And since nobody knows the answer to that for the 13th/14th gen Intel CPUs right now calling them all "damaged" is nothing but pointless FUD at this point.
If your CPU works fine then it's not "damaged".
Does ring bus even run at variable clocks? Why would it need variable voltages?
By Intel's own definition and admission, these chips are damaged, therefore I rank their opinon above yours. Let's not try to trivialize this with esoteric handwaving "oh the entire world is moving towards entropy" nonsense.
And yes, the ring bus is variable clock and as such enjoys variable voltage.
Could you point me to Intel's statement which says that ALL 13/14th gen CPU are "damaged" please?
Intel press release here: https://community.intel.com/t5/Proc...rts-on-Intel-Core-13th-and/m-p/1617113#M74792
The reality is, the bugged target / request voltage microcode is irrespective of motherboard or related firmware, and as such any and every 13th and 14th gen processor at or above 65W has been affected. Whether they're damaged to the point of OS instability is luck of the draw at this point, yet the damage is already done.
The reality is that the quote you've posted is basically saying what I'm saying:
Means that not ALL CPUs affected by the bug are damaged and those which are stable and don't crash are NOT damaged as per this Intel statement despite being "affected" by the m/c bug.
And what I'm telling you is a CPU can absolutely be damaged and not (yet) causing OS failures. And this is 100% absolutely correct, despite your claims to the contrary.
Intel Reportedly Lures TSMC's "Top-Level" Arizona Employees, Fueling Up Competition
With TSMC's transition into the US, Intel seems to have accelerated efforts to maintain its Foundry positioning by luring talent.
wccftech.com
No, it can't. If a CPU works without issues then it's not "damaged", period.
What you seem to suggest is that the bug has affected the longevity of CPUs which are working fine now but has worked with improper voltages long enough to be further in their silicon quality degradation than some other CPU which doesn't have the bug (i.e. a 12th series one). However at this moment you, me, Intel or anyone really don't know anything about that. There are no data suggesting that these CPUs will be affected to any measurable degree yet, so just saying that they are "damaged" as if that's a fact is pure FUD.
This is a semantic argument. In absolute terms, yes, they are damaged. Like getting some imperceptible micro-scratches on your phone screen. If the damage isn't affecting the experience, it can be ignored, but it's still damaged.
You are using 'damaged' to mean damaged far enough to be a problem. Albuquerque is using the absolute meaning that every chip has experienced physical effects that have weakened the underlying operation.
Precisely.
Not FUD but a different use of the word. Replace Albuquerque's use of 'damage' with 'further in their silicon quality degradation' and you'll get their point. With guaranteed accelerated wear and tear, all these processors should be expected to have a reduced life expectancy versus 1) the standard for similar processors and 2) the life expectancy of new 13/14 series that have been patched.
No, it's not. A damaged CPU would not be able to work as intended while a CPU which is "affected by the bug" but not damaged would work fine. Since no one knows the extent of degradation the bug has caused to each particular CPU which is affected you CANNOT call them all "damaged" even from the point of them possibly having lower longevity now (i.e. failing sooner than expected; you need to have a time machine to say that this will definitely happen).
I'll stop at that because it's honestly tiresome to argue things which are clear as day.
even if it doesnt affect anything in its usage, if physically there's something that has changed, its already damaged. albeit damaged in the sense of not affecting usage.
some kind of damages are by design, and people live with it. for example OLED. it literaly burns its own life every time its used. but it is designed like that. while the intel CPU was not desgined to cook itsef.
some kind of damages are by design, and people live with it. for example OLED. it literaly burns its own life every time its used. but it is designed like that. while the intel CPU was not desgined to cook itsef.
Subtlesnake
Regular
Homerdog was asking if he could expect a patched CPU to be fine for the rest of its life. It's reasonable to reply that even after the patch, the CPU may fail earlier than it otherwise would have, due to the issue. And I don't think observing such effects requires any mysterious godlike powers. You just need to compare the failure rate (after the patch rollout) vs. prior generations and CPU models not vulnerable to the issue.
Sure. Any CPU may fail earlier than you would expect, even those which don't have the issue. It is impossible to say that it definitely would though. And this applies to the affected CPUs too.
Yes, it is. It's not about who's right or wrong - maybe your definition is the correct one. The point here is the intent of the term and what people are trying to communicate. The discussion shouldn't be trying to determine if someone is right or wrong in using the word 'damaged', but if their idea of the impact of the fault is correct or not, regardless of the word or phrase used to describe that.
Move on from that - will every processor that has been operating with higher voltages have experienced accelerated wear or not?
Higher voltages than what? Every processor which is operating on any voltages experience degradation and will eventually fail. The question whether this will happen to 13/14th gen CPUs earlier than you would expect doesn't have an answer since we don't know the future. Also "earlier than expected" is actually completely subjective and may be different to you, me and everyone in this thread. So just stating "yes, it is" in nothing but FUD.
Similar threads
