The problem is the majority of consumer PC's never receive a BIOS update. Windows Update has started rolling in firmware updates from tier-1 OEM's (specifically HP) but they are sometimes optional updates and not automatically installed.
It seems very likely that it WILL be released as a Windows Update for ALL cpus like they've done with earlier critical microcode updates from both Intel and AMD - it's just that it's too early for that, and Intel's statement doesn't rule that out. The reason for the delay is that microcode updates can be buggy too - both Intel and AMD has had to retract CPU microcode updates after they were sent to BIOS makers. It's RARE but not unknown. Once that happens it will get applied during boot on any up to date machine that doesn't already have updated BIOS. My guess based on historical OS microcode update is that Intel will be submitting this for that kind of deployment on both Windows and mainstream Linux distributions one or two months from now.
updated microcode has always(?) been able to be loaded during OS boot on at least windows and linux rather than requiring the motherboard bios/fw to be updated, and a perk to that is one can choose to not load it (rollback) for troubleshooting or benchmarking proposes
I stand to be corrected, but from what I understand, it has to be loaded when the *CPU* is booting up and a pointer to updated microcode is resolved instead of the old one. So, I think this would be before the OS boots.
CPU microcode can be loaded as part of the BIOS/EFI, as part of the OS boot process, or via software run once the OS has completed booting.
Having it loaded as part of the BIOS/EFI is best as it's implemented first, but can be problematic if something goes wrong as you have to rollback the entire BIOS/EFI. Requires the motherboard maker to publish a BIOS/EFI update for your specific motherboard.
Having it load as part of the OS is the "easiest" as it's just another software update making it easier to rollback if there's issues. Requires the OS vendor to provide the updates for your specific CPU model. This tends to happen faster than a motherboard update. Doesn't help if the update is needed to fix an issue that occurs prior to the OS loading, though.
Having it load via software is easiest for testing. You can manually load/unload microcode updates to test them. This tends to be the fastest route as you just download the microcode update from the CPU vendor. I know this can be done on FreeBSD and Linux (done it in the past) and I'm fairly certain this can be done on Windows. If things go wrong, just reboot and the microcode update won't be loaded.
Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense. I've never done that low-level programming, except a bit of assembly once upon a time, so I wasn't sure how things operate there. I suppose it's done through the System Management Mode, made for these sort of things.
How will someone know if their CPU is mildly degraded right now, too?
Intel should be required to do a full recall and cap the voltage lower than this new cap. It should not be allowed to do what Apple did with the faulty-solder Nvidia GPUs and give customers old time-bomb parts as the exchange either.
Not very necessary either. Intel extended the warranties on these products for 2 more years. That is the right solution for this problem, as many people will NEVER have a problem. Product recalls are more for serious safty issues, not product durability issues.
I wouldn't even bother sending in my CPU unless it started crashing. Even then .. if it was two or three years from now, I would probably just buy new.
AMD exists. If Intel squanders its mindshare by giving customers a raw deal it can have repercussions. Regardless, protecting shareholders should never be the first priority in business. The first priority should be sustainability but since it never will be it should be maintaining mindshare which means not giving customers a raw deal.
Not good enough, people who have a degraded cpu because Intel messed it up with their micro codes should get a replacement and not deal with a half dead CPU and some wannabe fixes.
It won’t, as the article said, peak voltage will still be a sky high 1.55V - in other words, Intel CPUs are so bad, they need a ton of voltage (power) to be competitive.
Proper protocol would be to have BIOS password protected and UFI security in place. In order to do a microcode update through the OS these 2 items would have to be turned off MANUALLY.
Finally something. But I don't really think capping at 1.5V Vmin will permanently stop. The RPL silicon is flawed in design because the degradation was too fast, just under year. 14nm++ processors ran at higher volts even OCed for many years. Before dying. Also the LLC spike will still happen. So the 1.4V spike will eventually ruin the processors slowly. Esp with that 6.2GHz ST boosting. And even if you stop that the 1.4V spike will happen unless you have a golden chip.
Intel 10th gen had Cache speed OC beyond 5.5GHz but if you do that the ring bus will degrade and throw WHEA errors. Esp on a medium SP rated processor. On ADL they capped it but in RPL they pushed to max causing ring degradation. On 2 sides, Voltage and Speed.
All in all LGA1700 is a mess. CPU bends due to poor engineering. Mobo will also bend due to that. Add this voltage based silicon degradation. It's really not worth to own this LGA socket based products.
AMDs AM5 socket is way better built. It's having some downside like PCIe linkspeed is just 4.0x4 lanes. I hope AMD does a good Zen 6 release with higher performance. Intel seems to go on wrong side more. With the lack of Hyperthreading and more E cores and same socket bending.
I forgot the most important point, for the all core OC you will need a 1.4V for sure, 5.9GHz for eg. For lower SP processors the voltage will further increase. The transient spikes to 1.5V cannot be avoided. I'm talking about 1.4V which many run because it is needed for OC to higher speeds else it will fall to Alder Lake clockspeed.
Rocket Lake can run at 1.4V Comet Lake can run at 1.4V as well, but not Cache ratio OC on CML. And this 10nm silicon of Intel is definitely not built like a fully mature 14nm node. So these will degrade by the end of warranty and EOLed by then.
Avoid buying LGA1700 processors. Bartlett Lake leak or not the P core only also is not a good choice given how fragile Intel 10nm node is. It is comparable to TSMC 7N, look at 5800X3D it runs at 1.4V high voltage and no degradation. Zen 5 lessened the voltage to 1.2-1.3V now at 5.8GHz much stable silicon design and engineering.
Really no brainer to skip the entire LGA1700 disaster at this point. Stupid fans still say Intel is good, coping mechanism kicking in. I always supported Intel even with their 14nm++ processors because Ryzen AM4 had USB issues and still have plus DRAM IMC is very spotty. But this time Intel is a serious red flag.
Imagine a Sandy Bridge i7 2600K can handle all the way 800Mhz OC and doesn't kill itself all these years, the RPL i7 and i9 simply kill themselves under a damn year. That shows how far Intel has fallen in node and lithography design engineering.
Something similar happened with early Northwoods that would degrade when overclocked and at length fail: the infamous "Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome." Perhaps it was an issue in their new 130-nm process at the time.
I bet that was also the same issue as here, not the node but excessive voltage and power which Pentium 4 is also infamous for. How people forget this fact and blame some node instead is beyond me.
I always thought it was an issue with the node, but it could have been the voltage. However, overclockers would manually set the latter and there wasn't turbo back then, so I doubt it was wrong automatic voltage.
The intel 10nm node isn't the issue, alone extreme voltages / power are, it seems it ran OVER 1.55 V and they want to cap it now at "just" 1.55 which is still extreme - and the comparison to 5800X3D is nonsense, it runs at 1.4 (which is way less) only a low amount of time and not consistently like Intel CPUs do at even higher voltages - hence why they destroyed themselves.
I bet AMD could produce a Ryzen CPU on 10nm Intel and it would be 100% fine, just like Alder Lake was. Never blame the node here, just the other guys who messed it up.
If you read Intel datasheets, they put 1.7V as Max voltage. Not that you can run that high 24.7, and Intel CML, RKL bins if you see most of them below 80SP need 1.5V for 5.3GHz that's VID factory from Intel. And only golden chips past 100SP can get that at 1.3V. Basically anyone running their 10th gen i9 10900K at 5.3GHz need 1.4-1.5V and those are over 95% of the entire 14nm++ CPU yields on a Z490/Z590 board, LGA1200.
RKL was sabotaged on purpose by Intel due to backport from 10nm to 14nm++, Arch was not scaling on 14nm++ plus it was tremendous heat density 300W on RKL cannot be cooled on AIO even, and performance dropped due to 2C4T defecit due to regression and HT/SMT performance tanked on top of IMC, still that chip could take over 1.4-1.5V same like CML and did not die.
I do not know much on Alder Lake but they were not running at 5.5GHz+ and the RING bus does not involve higher E cores. I compared the node because TSMC 7N was equal to Intel 10nm / Intel 7, in terms of density and infact intel has higher density, that's per Ian's Anandtech article. So Intel pushed them hard on Raptor Lake with over 5.8GHz and to 6GHz on top of extra Ring OC beyond 5GHz (which was throwing WHEA on CML and RKL was capped) and shoved E cores onto Ringbus and ran at same higher voltage like CML and RKL same LLC overshoot to 1.5V+ , the node is at fault because it cannot handle the architecture specific design, 14nmm did not exhibit such issues nor 22nm of Intel. Only 10nm did. Intel's XEON Sapphire Rapids also was a huge dud because it had many steppings and having constant issues, the Intel's Supercomputer also a dead end because Pointe Vecchio + Sapphire Rapids is having issues all over. Read it online.. "Intel-powered Aurora supercomputer fails to dethrone AMD-powered Frontier on Top500 list, again — claims spot as fastest AI supercomputer with HPL-MxP benchmark instead"
AMD's 5800X3D always runs at higher voltages at 1.4V you can check any 5800X3D Cinebench runs. It has low boost ceiling (Sub 5GHz) unlike Zen 4 which can shoot to 5.8GHz and be rock stable. Plus as I mentioned Zen 4 at 5.8GHz runs at 1.2-1.3V, out of the box max boost with very less OC headroom.
You’re kinda contradicting yourself. Let me explain:
- higher (or better or denser nodes) always sustain a bit less voltage, that’s well known, the better the node the “smaller”, the less voltage it can take.
- So Alder Lake was fine, RPL wasn’t because of higher voltage/power, confirming my point, not yours. You said this yourself, but it’s not making your point.
- it’s absolutely normal a node can only take so much and not even higher voltage, again, I will not blame the node here as you do, the architecture is too bad, not performant enough that’s why Intel wants extreme clocks and thus extreme voltages. All point to an architecture and performance deficit and competitive problems not the node.
- 10nm was a train wreck for a long time but then finally matured into a good node - that just as an aside.
Intel 4 (no high performance silicon exists) is equivalent to TSMC 5N, which is what Zen 4 is made on, and runs at 1.2-1.3V at 5.8GHz or OCed on few cores. Meanwhile Intel 10nm / Intel 7 is equivalent to TSMC 7N. And Zen 3 can run at 1.4V (5800X3D) although clock limited no degradation. Now RPL is made on this node not Intel 4, which cannot sustain 1.4V, that 1.55V limit is not going to save degradation, it will slowly occur instead of rapid onset.
Intel 22nm and 14nm++ ran at 1.4V and even 1.5V for poor SP processors at BIOS defaults that ASUS crams into them, and no dying of CPUs nor weird Oodle compression problems or instability in general, many still run all gens of processors to date.
All this says Intel node is at fault for not handling higher voltage for RPL silicon.. Also SPR XEON facing issues further cements that Node is not great, matter of fact Intel does not use their 10nm+ in their future lineup nor any customers exist for Intel which fab high performance parts. Intel ARL is made on Intel 4 and TSMC silicon.
That is left to be seen after the fix, because the micro code was buggy we have no data on this. The only data with lower / proper voltage was with Alder Lake and ADL had no significant problems.
Again, more simpler nodes that have bigger area will suffer higher voltages, go back and check really old nodes you will see that the voltages are extremely high there compared to now and not possible with nodes used since over 10 years now.
You have no data on this, like i already explained now (multiple times I guess).
>further cements that Node is not great
Not possible to know without testing non-Intel architectures on it, as ADL counters your point, or basically all Intel arches that ran properly. It's not the node, my friend, it's the arch.
>matter of fact Intel does not use their 10nm+ in their future lineup
Of course not, because it is outdated, this isn't a point for you to make at all, it's nonsense, sorry to be blunt. AMD doesn't use 7nm TSMC either anymore, you wanna make the same point there now as well? Only used for old stuff like Zen 3.
>nor any customers exist for Intel which fab high performance parts.
1) because Intel didn't allow them to do so (especially not AMD)
2) because TSMC is better, not because Intel 10nm is bad. Big difference. This means Apple will use TSMC, not Intel. Because TSMC is better, not because Intel node is "bad".
>Intel ARL is made on Intel 4 and TSMC silicon.
Doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, but we will see if Intel 4 is a good node or not, so far we have 0 data on this (desktop PC, which again will stress the CPU and node more than anything else).
The famous overclocker 'the Stilt' claimed that the lower the leakage of a piece of silicon, the higher the voltage required. He said lower leakage is always superior except when doing extreme overclocking with LN2.
His statements contradict 99% of the comments made by others, which involve claiming that lower voltage = golden chip. He said lower voltage chips require more current which leads to more power usage and heat.
For instance, he said that AMD's 9000-series Piledriver parts were originally so out of spec that they would have been sent to the crusher. They needed less voltage for high clocks but leaked so much that they required more current and thus generated more waste heat.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
Back to Article
Samus - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
The problem is the majority of consumer PC's never receive a BIOS update. Windows Update has started rolling in firmware updates from tier-1 OEM's (specifically HP) but they are sometimes optional updates and not automatically installed.TLindgren - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
It seems very likely that it WILL be released as a Windows Update for ALL cpus like they've done with earlier critical microcode updates from both Intel and AMD - it's just that it's too early for that, and Intel's statement doesn't rule that out.The reason for the delay is that microcode updates can be buggy too - both Intel and AMD has had to retract CPU microcode updates after they were sent to BIOS makers. It's RARE but not unknown. Once that happens it will get applied during boot on any up to date machine that doesn't already have updated BIOS.
My guess based on historical OS microcode update is that Intel will be submitting this for that kind of deployment on both Windows and mainstream Linux distributions one or two months from now.
kn00tcn - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
updated microcode has always(?) been able to be loaded during OS boot on at least windows and linux rather than requiring the motherboard bios/fw to be updated, and a perk to that is one can choose to not load it (rollback) for troubleshooting or benchmarking proposesGeoffreyA - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
I stand to be corrected, but from what I understand, it has to be loaded when the *CPU* is booting up and a pointer to updated microcode is resolved instead of the old one. So, I think this would be before the OS boots.phoenix_rizzen - Monday, August 19, 2024 - link
CPU microcode can be loaded as part of the BIOS/EFI, as part of the OS boot process, or via software run once the OS has completed booting.Having it loaded as part of the BIOS/EFI is best as it's implemented first, but can be problematic if something goes wrong as you have to rollback the entire BIOS/EFI. Requires the motherboard maker to publish a BIOS/EFI update for your specific motherboard.
Having it load as part of the OS is the "easiest" as it's just another software update making it easier to rollback if there's issues. Requires the OS vendor to provide the updates for your specific CPU model. This tends to happen faster than a motherboard update. Doesn't help if the update is needed to fix an issue that occurs prior to the OS loading, though.
Having it load via software is easiest for testing. You can manually load/unload microcode updates to test them. This tends to be the fastest route as you just download the microcode update from the CPU vendor. I know this can be done on FreeBSD and Linux (done it in the past) and I'm fairly certain this can be done on Windows. If things go wrong, just reboot and the microcode update won't be loaded.
GeoffreyA - Tuesday, August 20, 2024 - link
Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense. I've never done that low-level programming, except a bit of assembly once upon a time, so I wasn't sure how things operate there. I suppose it's done through the System Management Mode, made for these sort of things.MarcusMo - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
Not RMA ing chips that you have physically damaged via unsuitable voltage and electromigration is not “a ray of hope”, its borderline fraudulent.Oxford Guy - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
How will someone know if their CPU is mildly degraded right now, too?Intel should be required to do a full recall and cap the voltage lower than this new cap. It should not be allowed to do what Apple did with the faulty-solder Nvidia GPUs and give customers old time-bomb parts as the exchange either.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
Yes, damaged or not, people should be able to get brand-new parts or refunds.shabby - Monday, August 12, 2024 - link
That solution is not very shareholder friendly.TEAMSWITCHER - Monday, August 12, 2024 - link
Not very necessary either. Intel extended the warranties on these products for 2 more years. That is the right solution for this problem, as many people will NEVER have a problem. Product recalls are more for serious safty issues, not product durability issues.I wouldn't even bother sending in my CPU unless it started crashing. Even then .. if it was two or three years from now, I would probably just buy new.
Khanan - Tuesday, August 13, 2024 - link
After such a trainwreck from Intel, your post seems out of this world and tone deaf and doesn’t make much sense either.Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
'That solution is not very shareholder friendly.'AMD exists. If Intel squanders its mindshare by giving customers a raw deal it can have repercussions. Regardless, protecting shareholders should never be the first priority in business. The first priority should be sustainability but since it never will be it should be maintaining mindshare which means not giving customers a raw deal.
Khanan - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
Not good enough, people who have a degraded cpu because Intel messed it up with their micro codes should get a replacement and not deal with a half dead CPU and some wannabe fixes.nandnandnand - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
Damaged CPUs will shit up the used market for years to come, and there's no guarantee this microcode update stops further damage completely.Khanan - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
It won’t, as the article said, peak voltage will still be a sky high 1.55V - in other words, Intel CPUs are so bad, they need a ton of voltage (power) to be competitive.[email protected] - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
Proper protocol would be to have BIOS password protected and UFI security in place. In order to do a microcode update through the OS these 2 items would have to be turned off MANUALLY.Silver5urfer - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
Finally something. But I don't really think capping at 1.5V Vmin will permanently stop. The RPL silicon is flawed in design because the degradation was too fast, just under year. 14nm++ processors ran at higher volts even OCed for many years. Before dying. Also the LLC spike will still happen. So the 1.4V spike will eventually ruin the processors slowly. Esp with that 6.2GHz ST boosting. And even if you stop that the 1.4V spike will happen unless you have a golden chip.Intel 10th gen had Cache speed OC beyond 5.5GHz but if you do that the ring bus will degrade and throw WHEA errors. Esp on a medium SP rated processor. On ADL they capped it but in RPL they pushed to max causing ring degradation. On 2 sides, Voltage and Speed.
All in all LGA1700 is a mess. CPU bends due to poor engineering. Mobo will also bend due to that. Add this voltage based silicon degradation. It's really not worth to own this LGA socket based products.
AMDs AM5 socket is way better built. It's having some downside like PCIe linkspeed is just 4.0x4 lanes. I hope AMD does a good Zen 6 release with higher performance. Intel seems to go on wrong side more. With the lack of Hyperthreading and more E cores and same socket bending.
Silver5urfer - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
I forgot the most important point, for the all core OC you will need a 1.4V for sure, 5.9GHz for eg. For lower SP processors the voltage will further increase. The transient spikes to 1.5V cannot be avoided. I'm talking about 1.4V which many run because it is needed for OC to higher speeds else it will fall to Alder Lake clockspeed.Rocket Lake can run at 1.4V Comet Lake can run at 1.4V as well, but not Cache ratio OC on CML. And this 10nm silicon of Intel is definitely not built like a fully mature 14nm node. So these will degrade by the end of warranty and EOLed by then.
Avoid buying LGA1700 processors. Bartlett Lake leak or not the P core only also is not a good choice given how fragile Intel 10nm node is. It is comparable to TSMC 7N, look at 5800X3D it runs at 1.4V high voltage and no degradation. Zen 5 lessened the voltage to 1.2-1.3V now at 5.8GHz much stable silicon design and engineering.
Really no brainer to skip the entire LGA1700 disaster at this point. Stupid fans still say Intel is good, coping mechanism kicking in. I always supported Intel even with their 14nm++ processors because Ryzen AM4 had USB issues and still have plus DRAM IMC is very spotty. But this time Intel is a serious red flag.
Imagine a Sandy Bridge i7 2600K can handle all the way 800Mhz OC and doesn't kill itself all these years, the RPL i7 and i9 simply kill themselves under a damn year. That shows how far Intel has fallen in node and lithography design engineering.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
Something similar happened with early Northwoods that would degrade when overclocked and at length fail: the infamous "Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome." Perhaps it was an issue in their new 130-nm process at the time.Khanan - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
I bet that was also the same issue as here, not the node but excessive voltage and power which Pentium 4 is also infamous for. How people forget this fact and blame some node instead is beyond me.GeoffreyA - Monday, August 12, 2024 - link
I always thought it was an issue with the node, but it could have been the voltage. However, overclockers would manually set the latter and there wasn't turbo back then, so I doubt it was wrong automatic voltage.TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, August 21, 2024 - link
It's not as simple as the node nor voltage, as the 12th gens dont have issues.Khanan - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
The intel 10nm node isn't the issue, alone extreme voltages / power are, it seems it ran OVER 1.55 V and they want to cap it now at "just" 1.55 which is still extreme - and the comparison to 5800X3D is nonsense, it runs at 1.4 (which is way less) only a low amount of time and not consistently like Intel CPUs do at even higher voltages - hence why they destroyed themselves.I bet AMD could produce a Ryzen CPU on 10nm Intel and it would be 100% fine, just like Alder Lake was. Never blame the node here, just the other guys who messed it up.
Silver5urfer - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
If you read Intel datasheets, they put 1.7V as Max voltage. Not that you can run that high 24.7, and Intel CML, RKL bins if you see most of them below 80SP need 1.5V for 5.3GHz that's VID factory from Intel. And only golden chips past 100SP can get that at 1.3V. Basically anyone running their 10th gen i9 10900K at 5.3GHz need 1.4-1.5V and those are over 95% of the entire 14nm++ CPU yields on a Z490/Z590 board, LGA1200.RKL was sabotaged on purpose by Intel due to backport from 10nm to 14nm++, Arch was not scaling on 14nm++ plus it was tremendous heat density 300W on RKL cannot be cooled on AIO even, and performance dropped due to 2C4T defecit due to regression and HT/SMT performance tanked on top of IMC, still that chip could take over 1.4-1.5V same like CML and did not die.
I do not know much on Alder Lake but they were not running at 5.5GHz+ and the RING bus does not involve higher E cores. I compared the node because TSMC 7N was equal to Intel 10nm / Intel 7, in terms of density and infact intel has higher density, that's per Ian's Anandtech article. So Intel pushed them hard on Raptor Lake with over 5.8GHz and to 6GHz on top of extra Ring OC beyond 5GHz (which was throwing WHEA on CML and RKL was capped) and shoved E cores onto Ringbus and ran at same higher voltage like CML and RKL same LLC overshoot to 1.5V+ , the node is at fault because it cannot handle the architecture specific design, 14nmm did not exhibit such issues nor 22nm of Intel. Only 10nm did. Intel's XEON Sapphire Rapids also was a huge dud because it had many steppings and having constant issues, the Intel's Supercomputer also a dead end because Pointe Vecchio + Sapphire Rapids is having issues all over. Read it online.. "Intel-powered Aurora supercomputer fails to dethrone AMD-powered Frontier on Top500 list, again — claims spot as fastest AI supercomputer with HPL-MxP benchmark instead"
AMD's 5800X3D always runs at higher voltages at 1.4V you can check any 5800X3D Cinebench runs. It has low boost ceiling (Sub 5GHz) unlike Zen 4 which can shoot to 5.8GHz and be rock stable. Plus as I mentioned Zen 4 at 5.8GHz runs at 1.2-1.3V, out of the box max boost with very less OC headroom.
powerarmour - Monday, August 12, 2024 - link
7800X3D only runs at 1.1v even.Khanan - Monday, August 12, 2024 - link
You’re kinda contradicting yourself. Let me explain:- higher (or better or denser nodes) always sustain a bit less voltage, that’s well known, the better the node the “smaller”, the less voltage it can take.
- So Alder Lake was fine, RPL wasn’t because of higher voltage/power, confirming my point, not yours. You said this yourself, but it’s not making your point.
- it’s absolutely normal a node can only take so much and not even higher voltage, again, I will not blame the node here as you do, the architecture is too bad, not performant enough that’s why Intel wants extreme clocks and thus extreme voltages. All point to an architecture and performance deficit and competitive problems not the node.
- 10nm was a train wreck for a long time but then finally matured into a good node - that just as an aside.
Silver5urfer - Tuesday, August 13, 2024 - link
Intel 4 (no high performance silicon exists) is equivalent to TSMC 5N, which is what Zen 4 is made on, and runs at 1.2-1.3V at 5.8GHz or OCed on few cores. Meanwhile Intel 10nm / Intel 7 is equivalent to TSMC 7N. And Zen 3 can run at 1.4V (5800X3D) although clock limited no degradation. Now RPL is made on this node not Intel 4, which cannot sustain 1.4V, that 1.55V limit is not going to save degradation, it will slowly occur instead of rapid onset.Intel 22nm and 14nm++ ran at 1.4V and even 1.5V for poor SP processors at BIOS defaults that ASUS crams into them, and no dying of CPUs nor weird Oodle compression problems or instability in general, many still run all gens of processors to date.
All this says Intel node is at fault for not handling higher voltage for RPL silicon.. Also SPR XEON facing issues further cements that Node is not great, matter of fact Intel does not use their 10nm+ in their future lineup nor any customers exist for Intel which fab high performance parts. Intel ARL is made on Intel 4 and TSMC silicon.
Khanan - Tuesday, August 13, 2024 - link
That is left to be seen after the fix, because the micro code was buggy we have no data on this. The only data with lower / proper voltage was with Alder Lake and ADL had no significant problems.Again, more simpler nodes that have bigger area will suffer higher voltages, go back and check really old nodes you will see that the voltages are extremely high there compared to now and not possible with nodes used since over 10 years now.
You have no data on this, like i already explained now (multiple times I guess).
>further cements that Node is not great
Not possible to know without testing non-Intel architectures on it, as ADL counters your point, or basically all Intel arches that ran properly. It's not the node, my friend, it's the arch.
>matter of fact Intel does not use their 10nm+ in their future lineup
Of course not, because it is outdated, this isn't a point for you to make at all, it's nonsense, sorry to be blunt. AMD doesn't use 7nm TSMC either anymore, you wanna make the same point there now as well? Only used for old stuff like Zen 3.
>nor any customers exist for Intel which fab high performance parts.
1) because Intel didn't allow them to do so (especially not AMD)
2) because TSMC is better, not because Intel 10nm is bad. Big difference. This means Apple will use TSMC, not Intel. Because TSMC is better, not because Intel node is "bad".
>Intel ARL is made on Intel 4 and TSMC silicon.
Doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, but we will see if Intel 4 is a good node or not, so far we have 0 data on this (desktop PC, which again will stress the CPU and node more than anything else).
Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
The famous overclocker 'the Stilt' claimed that the lower the leakage of a piece of silicon, the higher the voltage required. He said lower leakage is always superior except when doing extreme overclocking with LN2.His statements contradict 99% of the comments made by others, which involve claiming that lower voltage = golden chip. He said lower voltage chips require more current which leads to more power usage and heat.
For instance, he said that AMD's 9000-series Piledriver parts were originally so out of spec that they would have been sent to the crusher. They needed less voltage for high clocks but leaked so much that they required more current and thus generated more waste heat.