[HN Gopher] Intel says 13th and 14th Gen mobile CPUs are crashing
___________________________________________________________________
Intel says 13th and 14th Gen mobile CPUs are crashing
Author : markus_zhang
Score : 138 points
Date : 2024-07-21 16:19 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| Ah but only due to a broad range of hardware and software issues,
| not because of the same hardware issue killing the desktop
| equivalents, so that's good news.
| bayindirh wrote:
| When your processor is cooking itself to death, all bets are
| off. We have seen some of them in our data center over the
| years, albeit very rarely.
|
| Interestingly, a modern processor is very resilient against
| losing its functional blocks during operation. While this is a
| boon, diagnosing these problems is a bit too complicated for
| the inexperienced.
| TomatoCo wrote:
| > a modern processor is very resilient against losing its
| functional blocks during operation
|
| I'm very curious, can you elaborate on that?
| echoangle wrote:
| I'm not sure sure if that's what they meant, but generally,
| CPUs will throttle or shut down if they detect overtemp,
| hopefully before they start encountering errors which lead
| to wrong calculation results/crashes.
| bayindirh wrote:
| An x86 processor can detect when it makes a serious error
| in some pipelines and rerun these steps until things go
| right. This is the first line of recovery (this is why
| temperature spikes start to happen when a CPU reaches its
| overclocking limits. It starts to make mistakes and this
| mechanism kicks in).
|
| Also x86 has something called "machine check architecture"
| which constantly monitors the system and the CPU and throws
| "Machine Check Exceptions" when something goes very wrong.
|
| These exceptions divide into "recoverable" and
| "unrecoverable" exceptions. An unrecoverable exception
| generally triggers a kernel panic, and recoverable ones are
| logged in system logs.
|
| Moreover, a CPU can lose (fry) some caches (e.g.: half of
| L1), and it'll boot with whatever available, and report
| what it can access and address. In some extreme cases, it
| loses its FPU or vector units, and instead of getting
| upset, it tries to do the operations at microcode level or
| with whatever units available. This manifests as extremely
| low LINPACK numbers. We had a couple of these, but I didn't
| run accuracy tests on these specimens, but LINPACK didn't
| say anything about the results. Just the performance was
| very low when compared to normal processors.
|
| Throttling is a normal defense against poor cooling. Above
| mechanisms try to keep the processor operational in limp
| mode, so you can diagnose and migrate somehow.
| Sakos wrote:
| Based on Intel's behavior so far and the previous comment by
| Alderon Games' founder, I'm not sure why you're so willing to
| believe them at face value.
|
| > "The laptops crash in the exact same way as the desktop parts
| including workloads under Unreal Engine, decompression,
| ycruncher or similar. Laptop chips we have seen failing include
| but not limited to 13900HX etc.," Cassells said.
|
| > "Intel seems to be down playing the issues here most likely
| due to the expensive costs related to BGA rework and possible
| harm to OEMs and Partners," he continued. "We have seen these
| crashes on Razer, MSI, Asus Laptops and similar used by
| developers in our studio to work on the game. The crash
| reporting data for my game shows a huge amount of laptops that
| could be having issues."
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| I'm totally willing to believe they're experiencing a broad
| range of hardware and software issues :)
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| Its absurd this is still going on 6 months after the story first
| broke and we are really none the wiser. With estimates of 10-25%
| of CPUs impacted from the desktop side it seems likely all the
| CPUs are going to fail (including mine). They can't even recall
| and replace products yet as the problem isn't known. I sure hope
| Intel isn't just hiding the cause when its known all along
| because that is going to turn into big lawsuits across the world.
| kingsleyopara wrote:
| Completely agree. The lack of clarity around all this is hardly
| confidence inspiring. Definitely seems like a good time to be
| considering AMD or Qualcomm.
| yellowapple wrote:
| It does indeed make me glad I've opted to pick AMD over Intel
| for my recent computer purchases (at least of the x86-64
| variety).
| Sparkyte wrote:
| I've been using AMD since 2004. My first AMD processor was
| the Athlon 64 3000+, I was a kid I wasn't really allowed
| anything too expensive. We had dominately used Intel upt
| that point but when 64bit CPUs hit it was a revolutionary
| thing.
|
| The roughest era of AMD CPUs was the FX era. While it was
| comprable to its mid-range competition it was alos a sure
| fast way to burn down your house with its power draw.
|
| Ryzen was a huge step forward in CPU design and
| architecture.
|
| I see this era as Intel's FX era, if they have the right
| leadership in place they can turn the boat around and
| innovate.
| SmellTheGlove wrote:
| The funny part is that those FX processors were max 125w
| TDP. No different than today really.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> The roughest era of AMD CPUs was the FX era._
|
| _Ahem._ Bulldozer?
|
| _> Ryzen was a huge step forward in CPU design and
| architecture._
|
| First gen Ryzen was kinda mediocre. Second
| gen(correction: meaning Zen 2 not Ryzen 2000 which was
| still Zen 1) was where the performance came.
|
| Also let's not ignore how they screwed consumers like me
| by dropping SW support for Vega in 2023 while still
| selling laptops with Vega powered APUs on the shelves all
| the way till present day in 2024, or having a naming
| scheme that's intentionally confusing to mislead
| consumers where you don't know if that Ryzen 7000 laptop
| APU has Zen2, Zen3, Zen3+ or Zen4 CPU cores, if it's 4nm,
| 5nm, 6nm or 7nm or if it's running RDNA2, RDNA3 or the
| now obsolete Vega in a modern system.[1] Maddening.
|
| Despite that I'm a returning AMD customer to avoid Intel,
| but I'm having my own issues now with their iGPU drivers
| making me regret not going Intel this time around. The
| grass isn't always greener across the fence, just
| different issues.
|
| I get it, you're an AMD fan, but let's be objective and
| not ignore their stinkers and anti-consumer practices
| which they had plenty of and only played nice for a while
| to get sympathy because they were the struggling
| underdog, but didn't hesitate to milk and deceive
| consumers the moment they got back on top like any other
| for profit company with a moment of market dominance.
|
| My point being, don't get attached or loyal to any large
| company, since you're just a dollar sign for all of them.
| Be an informed consumer and make purchasing decisions on
| objective current factors, not blind brand loyalty from
| the distant past.
|
| [1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/1445760/amds-mobile-
| ryzen-na...
|
| https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-confusing-
| naming...
| gruez wrote:
| >>The roughest era of AMD CPUs was the FX era.
|
| >Ahem. Bulldozer?
|
| Bulldozer is the same as FX.
|
| >AMD FX is a series of high-end AMD microprocessors for
| personal computers which debuted in 2011, claimed as
| AMD's first native 8-core desktop processor.[1] The line
| was introduced with the Bulldozer microarchitecture at
| launch (codenamed "Zambezi"), and was then succeeded by
| its derivative Piledriver in 2012 (codenamed "Vishera").
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> AMD FX is a series of high-end AMD microprocessors for
| personal computers which debuted in 2011_
|
| Ha, well that's wrong. This is the first time I find a
| mistake or more accurately, a contradiction in Wikipedia.
|
| AMD's first FX CPU (the FX-51) came out in 2003 as a
| premium Athlon 64 that was an expensive power hungry
| beast, which is the one I assume the GP was talking
| about. Here, also from Wikipedia:
|
| _" The Athlon 64 FX is positioned as a hardware
| enthusiast product, marketed by AMD especially toward
| gamers. Unlike the standard Athlon 64, all of the Athlon
| 64 FX processors have their multipliers completely
| unlocked."_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64#Athlon_64_FX
| gruez wrote:
| It's not contradictory. The "FX" you're talking about is
| used as "Athlon FX"[1], whereas the "FX" in the article
| is "AMD FX"[2]. The branding might be a bit confusing,
| but the article isn't wrong.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AMD_Athlon64_FX.jpg
|
| [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AMD_FX_CPU_Ne
| w_logo....
| yread wrote:
| >The roughest era of AMD CPUs was the FX era.
|
| Or the early Athlons that would literally burn down
| without cooling?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYQSHXNFvUk
| echoangle wrote:
| > First gen Ryzen was mediocre. Second gen was where the
| performance came.
|
| Are you sure? I just looked at Ryzen 5 1600 vs 2600
| benchmarks and the difference is around 5%. And I also
| remember the hype when the first generation was released.
| I think Ryzen gen 1 was by far the largest step.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Modern chip model numbers are just branding, and one must
| look at the benchmarks if you want value:
|
| https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
|
| Yes, it is deceptive and annoying shenanigans for retail
| products =3
| tedunangst wrote:
| Zen 2 is Ryzen 3000.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| "Evil Inside(tm)" software made sure many of the
| libraries and compilers had much slower performance on
| AMD chips for years.
|
| We had to use intel cpu/gpu + CUDA gpu simply because of
| compatibility requirements (heavy media codecs and ML
| workloads.)
|
| Lets be honest, AMD technically has had a better product
| for decades if you exclude the power consumption metric.
| ARM64 v8 is also good, if and only if you don't need
| advanced gpu features.
|
| The Ryzen chips definitely are respectable in passmarks
| benchmark value stats rankings. =)
| mhitza wrote:
| I remember that I received a ridiculously high RPM fan
| with my FX-8350 CPU (in the box), which sounded like a
| vacuum when it ran. Took me less than a week to upgrade
| to a proper fan that managed to cool that damn thing at
| 600RPM or so, and life was quiet again!
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| I'm still running that fan/CPU combo... I intended to
| replace it many years ago but have never pulled the
| trigger yet.
| winrid wrote:
| Did you use AM5? It was hardly without issues, with users
| experiencing 30+ second POST times. I'm not even sure
| that's fixed yet with most motherboards OOTB.
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| Wow, I was planning an AM5 build but 30 second POST is
| yikes. Does it go away with an update?
| wtallis wrote:
| The long POST times are a consequence of DDR5 link
| training. It's not entirely an AMD-specific problem. Most
| motherboards for either Intel or AMD now have a feature
| to skip most of the link training if it doesn't look like
| there's been a hardware change or since the last boot,
| but it's unavoidable on the first boot.
| zigzag312 wrote:
| I've picked AMD over Intel too, but I've had so many issues
| with it that I partly regret it. Memory stability issues,
| extremely long boot times, too high voltage, iGPU driver
| timeouts. Most of the issues have been fixed, but not all.
| After months of dealing with an annoying memory leak, I've
| just recently been able to confirm that it is caused by a
| Zen 4 iGPU driver.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Sounds like bad ram (clean contacts, re-seat, and test)
| or temperature issues (the main reason we still use
| mobile i7-12700H was cheap ddr4 64GB ram stick kit, Iris
| media gpu drivers, and rtx CUDA gpu.)
|
| Intel has its own issues, Gigabyte told me to pound sand
| when asking to unlock the bios on my own equipment to
| disable IME.
|
| There is no greener grass on the fence line... just a
| different set of issues =3
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> Sounds like bad ram (clean contacts, re-seat, and
| test) _
|
| Since he's taking about iGPU issues, he most likely has a
| laptop APU, so no RAM to reseat. I'm also having similar
| issues on my Ryzen 7000 laptop. Kinda regret upgrading
| from the Ryzen 5000 laptop which AMD obsoleted just 2
| years after I bought it, as at least that had no issues.
| Hopefully new drivers in the future will fix stability
| but you never know.
|
| What I do know, is that this will most likely be my last
| AMD machine if Intel shows improvement to match AMD,
| since their Linux driver support is just top notch.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Depends on the failure mode, as it is common for specs to
| drift around under load (also, temperature cycling
| stresses PCB, and can shear BGA connections.)
|
| I'd try a slower cheap set of lower-bandwidth/higher-
| latency ram sticks to see if it stops glitching up. If
| you are using low latency sticks (iGPU means this is
| usually recommended), than dropping the performance a bit
| may stabilize your specific equipment.
|
| Of course, I'm not that smart... so YMMV... =3
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| There are no sticks in my laptop. I was taking about
| soldered RAM as is he norm on recent high speed LPDDR5X
| laptops.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Please pull the chip maker/model off your rig:
|
| sudo apt-get install cpu-x
|
| sudo cpu-x
|
| We may still be able to use this information to compare
| with other users glitches to see if there is some
| underlying similarity.
|
| Unfortunately, if it is a thermal stress/warping on the
| PCB cracking open RAM BGA balls on chips or shifting
| traces... One won't really be able to completely identify
| the intermittent issue.
|
| We were actually looking at buying a similar economy
| model earlier this year (ended up with a few classic
| Lenovo models instead)... so please be verbose with the
| make/model to help future searchers =3
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| Can't be thermal, I checked.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| X-ray vision like Superman I gather... nice... ;)
|
| Please dump the problematic cpu/ram chip model numbers to
| help other users. These chip manufacturer numbers is not
| really personally identifiable information, as they are
| shared between hundreds of thousands of products.
|
| The classic cpu-z for Windows users is here if you don't
| run *nix:
|
| https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html
|
| Best regards, =3
| zigzag312 wrote:
| Desktop Ryzen 7950X.
|
| Increasing the VRAM size (UMA size) to 4 GB fixed the
| frequent driver timeouts for me.
|
| Reverting to older driver (driver cleaner -> driver
| v23.11.1) fixed the memory leak. This memory leak is
| weird since PoolMon doesn't show anything unusual.
| Nothing shows as using too much memory anywhere, except
| committed memory size grows to over 100GB after few days
| of uptime and RamMap shows a large amount of unused-
| active memory.
| baq wrote:
| GPUs have the most complex drivers in the whole system,
| we're talking tens of millions LOCs, so it is absolutely
| not surprising that you're having issues like that given
| how recent AMD's investment into APUs is. I wouldn't use
| them for a few more years; get a cheap discrete GPU from
| nvidia or maybe even from Intel.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| The rtx3090 is an Ampere gpu, and will apparently be
| supported in the new open nVidia driver release.
|
| Should get interesting soon =)
| sekh60 wrote:
| In Nova? Or just the in-kernel component?
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Press release:
|
| https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-transitions-
| fully-t...
|
| Yet to personally try it out, but this should eventually
| enable better integration with the library ecosystems. =3
| onli wrote:
| Hm? AMD's investing in APUs is not a new thing, that's
| going back to the FX days with their FM1 socket. Since
| Ryzen 1 they have their G APUs, and their integrated
| graphics power the steamdeck and many other mobile
| handhelds. Plus, Intel's integrated graphics are known
| for their driver issues (and so is Arc, for now), so I'd
| disagree with that recommendation.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Please pull the chip maker/model and ram details off your
| rig:
|
| sudo apt-get install cpu-x
|
| sudo cpu-x
|
| I think comparing your specifications may help other
| users narrow down if a manufacturing or software defect
| is present.
|
| Thanks in advance =3
| dist-epoch wrote:
| I have a similar CPU, and I also get frequent iGPU
| crashes, but only when opening multiple tabs (6+) with
| video.
|
| I also increased UMA to 4 GB, it reduced the crash
| frequency, but it still happens.
|
| The discrete NVIDIA GPU I use at the same time is fine.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Please post the cpu-z (win) or cpu-x (linux) chip
| make/model for other users to compare/search.
|
| If there is enough data here, we may be able to see a
| common key detail emerge. i.e. if the anecdotal
| problem(s) remain overtly random, than a solution from
| the community or OEM may prove impossible.
|
| Thanks in advance, =3
| zigzag312 wrote:
| I did ~12h RAM test few times and it always passed
| successfully (except when I was testing EXPO profile on
| early BIOS version).
|
| I also did Prime95 CPU stress testing a few times without
| issues.
|
| All issues seem to be related to either BIOS or drivers.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Pleas join the branch discussing the idea of using
| slower/cheaper RAM.
|
| What is your current ram chip model, maker, and
| configuration on your machine?
|
| sudo apt-get install cpu-x
|
| sudo cpu-x
|
| Cheers, =3
| zigzag312 wrote:
| Corsair Vengeance 64GB (2x32GB) 5600MHz C36. Module Part
| Number: CMH64GX5M2B5600C36. DRAM manufactured by Samsung.
|
| Running RAM at default speeds (4800MHz) or using XMP
| profile 5600MHz C36 doesn't affect these issues (they are
| no more or less frequent).
|
| EDIT: XMP profile, not EXPO.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Thanks for helping the other users =3
| zigzag312 wrote:
| Some more info if it helps anyone:
|
| CPU Ryzen 9 7950X. Family: F (ext.: 19), Model: 1 (ext.:
| 61), Stepping: 2, Revision: RPL-B2.
|
| iGPU: Raphael, revision: C1.
|
| MB: ASUS TUF Gaming X670E-PLUS WiFi. Rev 1.xx.
| Southbridge rev.: 51.
| teeheelol wrote:
| I would never buy an AMD machine again after my last
| Ryzen 3600X. So many issues. It had to be power cycled
| 2-3 times to get it to boot. Memory corruption issues and
| stability issues galore. Not overclocked. Stock
| configuration. Decent quality board and power supply.
| Just hell.
|
| Swapped board out assuming it was that. Same problem.
| Turned out to be the CPU which was a pain in the ass
| getting a warranty replacement for.
|
| Ended up buying a new open box Intel 12400 Lenovo lump
| off eBay and using that.
| justinclift wrote:
| > Decent quality board
|
| Which board was it?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I've been staunchly an Intel stan since Pentium 4s were
| cool and this year will be my first AMD build. Have already
| been using their server hardware at the office and not
| disappointed at all.
|
| No particular straw broke the camel's back, they just
| haven't managed to justify their price premium in a very
| long time.
| forinti wrote:
| Just last week I bought a new desktop for a family member. I
| was considering an Intel CPU, but at the last minute found a
| better and cheaper option with an AMD processor. Am I glad I
| dodged that bullet.
| j45 wrote:
| I wonder if it's a hardware design or build defect, and the
| solution may be too inhibiting of performance.
| bitfilped wrote:
| 10-25% are Intel's numbers, it's closer to 50% in production
| DaoVeles wrote:
| Hard to tell. My workplace is currently running on nothing
| but 13th Gen i5' HP Elitebooks. We haven't had any issues but
| then I suspect these would all be running CPUS from the same
| batch, possibly even the same wafer.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I think I'm fine, my backup laptop is 12th gen... So should be
| fine. Still amazing that it is two generations. Problems were not
| noted or even considered already with 13th...
| saltminer wrote:
| > Still amazing that it is two generations.
|
| The 14th gen is so similar to the 13th gen, Intel took a lot of
| heat for it in the initial reviews. It's no surprise that they
| both suffer the same ails.
| wtallis wrote:
| It's not similar. It's _literally_ the same silicon. They
| didn 't tape out any new dies for the products branded as
| "14th gen"; not even a new stepping. Just minor tweaks to the
| binning.
| 79a6ed87 wrote:
| I didn't know that. I would like to know how to get more
| informed about these kind of structural differences on CPU
| generations.
|
| Going back to the what you said, Intel selling the same
| silicon as two different generations (even if this is still
| just marketing terminology) is a bit lame on their side.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| The desktop CPU issues were discussed earlier here[1] and
| here[2]. This is something else entirely, or so they say...
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40946644
|
| [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39478551
| moffkalast wrote:
| Hmm I was considering buying the Lattepanda Sigma for a project,
| but seeing it's a 13th gen mobile i5-1340P... err maybe not. It
| is a shame though, it's beefier than any ARM board and AMD
| doesn't seem to bother doing SBC integrations for some reason. I
| guess they hate money.
| omnimus wrote:
| You can get something with N100 processor.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Yeah that would be the Delta, but it's significantly slower
| (~6 times at multicore). The N100 is just a 9th gen Celeron
| after all. I'm more or less looking for a complete powerhouse
| in a smaller than ITX form factor for extremely compute
| intensive multithreaded stuff.
| _huayra_ wrote:
| The N100 is great, hopefully not affected by this problem
| though I'm not sure yet. It sips power and I've really liked
| it for homelab use where memory and IO are more important
| than core count (because most of the times things are idle,
| but one wants to keep VMs in memory and oversub the cores).
| Medox wrote:
| Or something with an N97, which performs better but is less
| power efficient. e.g. the new Odroid H4's
| stevenhuang wrote:
| I believe this was what caused sudden system instabilities on my
| 13600kf. I even undervolted my chip (lite load 1) when I got it,
| things ran fine for years until just a few weeks ago when I
| started hard freezing. I ended up disabling XMP which "fixed" it.
| mapt wrote:
| Having put together an i7-12900k rig on a z690 six months ago,
| two observations -
|
| * DDR5 is wildly different from previous generations in being
| much less stable with more DIMMs, due to timing synchronization
| sensitivity. With four 6000 sticks I just flat out can't get more
| than a 12 hour stable prime95, even at jedec-4800 certified
| speeds. I can't even boot at 6000. My first few months were
| plagued with random crashes minutes into loading a game.
|
| * There is a consensus that we're operating at & beyond the limit
| of this consumer ATX platform's TDP. There are recognized
| limitations in the motherboard retention mechanism that has
| prompted the use of aftermarket shims. Only the very top of the
| line largest air heatsinks are practical, and even then you spend
| much of the time thermally limited. Daring people regularly prove
| that the heatspreader is a limiting factor by going back to bare
| die cooling and getting five or ten degrees of advantage.
|
| Because of the temp throttling becoming a normal state rather
| than an emergency protection, better cooling translates directly
| into higher performance.
|
| Intel 13th gen and 14th gen were supposedly very similar, with
| slight thermal improvements from the process node.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| If you have memory errors, you can corrupt your OS during
| and/or after install time, which may explain some of your
| instability. Memory errors must be resolved prior to OS
| installation for any kind of expectations of problem-free
| usage.
| userbinator wrote:
| An overnight run of memtest86+ with all the tests enabled
| (including the RowHammer ones) is necessary to verify RAM
| correctness. I wonder if the latter is related to this
| somehow.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| I would agree with your recommendations and your concerns.
| If you have RAM errors and proceed to install an OS, you're
| gonna have a bad time.
|
| Windows SFC scans, DISM, etc can fix up some these issues
| after the fact, but unless you're also going to repair-
| install all your software again, just save all the data and
| reinstall. It's just not worth the trouble and you'll be
| chasing your tail and ghosts forever.
| wtallis wrote:
| > With four 6000 sticks I just flat out can't get more than a
| 12 hour stable prime95, even at jedec-4800 certified speeds. I
| can't even boot at 6000.
|
| Note that while your memory sticks may be rated to handle
| JEDEC's DDR5-4800 speed, and faster with XMP profiles, Intel's
| memory controller is only rated to operate at DDR5-4000 with
| two single-rank modules per channel, and DDR5-3600 with two
| dual-rank modules per channel. The speed of an individual DIMM
| is not the only important factor anymore. For the 12th gen
| parts, Intel didn't even promise DDR5-4800 unless the
| motherboard only had one slot per channel.
| yread wrote:
| The original post is more informative:
|
| https://www.radgametools.com/oodleintel.htm
|
| > Intel 13900K and 14900K processors, less likely 13700, 14700
| and other related processors as well
| andix wrote:
| Is anyone who knows about this still buying Intel? Seems like
| taking quite a risk.
| chad1n wrote:
| A few years ago, if you said you buy AMD, people would think you
| are hallucinating, but now it looks like it's the only reliable
| vendor for x64. Intel was once the king of reliability, but in
| the last years, it looks like the king of bugs.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| x64 or x86_64 or AMD64?
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| That was around 6-7 years ago at this point. Personally, every
| AMD machine I've had since then was very stable on Linux with
| an NVDA gpu. My latest one, an intel + NVDA, had issues under
| virtually all linux distros I had tried.
|
| Now that I don't need CUDA anymore I might consider going full
| team red.
| 79a6ed87 wrote:
| I would say that the AMD preferability came along with
| Meltdown
| buildbot wrote:
| I've experienced this with the extremely weird but cool intel
| compute cards:
| https://cdrdv2-public.intel.com/780985/nuc-13-compute-elemen...
|
| Running a test linux build, 1/5 times it will crash/reboot mid
| test. :(
| shadowpho wrote:
| Can you return them?
| buildbot wrote:
| Its passed the return window, I'm sure I could make a
| warranty claim (and then be stuck with the same issue).
| Luckily it was just one and I paid 200 total for the card and
| chassis :)
| teeheelol wrote:
| I hear a lot of anecdotes and noise from YouTubers around this
| but little to no actual data or analysis. I am a skeptic until I
| see concrete data. That covers both the mobile and desktop
| issues.
|
| Observations so far are limited to:
|
| I have seen actual evidence that some W680 boards have been
| shipping with an unlimited power profile which will toast a CPU
| fairly quickly. As to who's fault that is and if this correlates
| or is casual to the rest of the reports I don't know.
|
| My own Asus B760M board shipped with an unlimited power profile.
| I had to switch it to "Intel Default". This machine has been
| under heavy load with no issues so far.
|
| When I have done research I have only found people reporting this
| on custom build systems or low balling "servers". I haven't found
| any viable big brand system failure reports yet (Dell/HP/Lenovo
| etc). While some of this might be statistical failures I'd like
| to see configuration eliminated from the data as a cause first.
|
| I think it would be rather nice at this point if Intel produced
| their own desktop boards again with their own tested BIOS. So we
| have something viable to compare against a reference system
| rather than the usual ugly junk shifter outfits or big brands. A
| fully vertically integrated component PC would be a nice thing to
| have again. They just worked!
| fotcorn wrote:
| Gamers Nexus is talking to one big PC manufacturer (my guess is
| Dell) that is seeing failure rates of 10-25% for specific SKUs:
| https://youtu.be/gTeubeCIwRw?t=527&si=YzpDzI2IyadzQYid
|
| Not fully confirmed yet, but that sounds really bad. It seems
| like it also hits low power models like the 13900T, which would
| imply this isn't just a voltage issue from auto overclocking.
| teeheelol wrote:
| Yeah this is still second hand information though and there
| isn't any data still. There may be confounding factors.
|
| Lots of speculation that is all.
|
| Someone (at intel) needs to get an incident management
| process around this and start doing some proper comms.
| userbinator wrote:
| There was a prediction from 2016 that things would get much worse
| for CPU bugs starting with Skylake:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16058920
|
| It seems that article was updated with this one too.
| DaoVeles wrote:
| I used to say, 'Never bet against Intel' but the last 5-10
| years or so have not been kind to them. They have been kicking
| out the supports in the name of efficiency and we are seeing
| the impacts of this now.
|
| Same issue that is plaguing Boeing. MBA is now a swear word.
| IAmNotACellist wrote:
| And here I just bought a laptop with a 13900HX...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-21 23:05 UTC)