5 ms·

The headline isn't clear, but the claim so far is that the microcode update will fix any CPUs that haven't begun exhibiting instability. Nothing can fix the one

The headline isn't clear, but the claim so far is that the microcode update will fix any CPUs that haven't begun exhibiting instability. Nothing can fix the ones that are already broken. For those that are somewhere in between, hope it fails within the warranty period I guess.

mrtksn 2y ago
The way I understand it, they had a bug that will run the CPU on higher voltage than the hardware can tolerate. Those who pushed the limits physically damaged their CPU and these are now cooked. The microcode update will limit the voltage, which will result in degraded performance but will prevent damage under load.
- hypercube33 2y ago
  GN was saying people saw the bugs on chips not pushed at all on workstation boards though.
  - xethos 2y ago
    Level One Techs' Wendell was saying the same thing after asking companies running server farms independently. Both got some sketchily-high numbers, in the 25-50% range. This is only looking worse for Intel as days go by.
    - mananaysiempre 2y ago
      GN was quoting L1T and had an interview with Wendell about it, so it’s all the same source effectively.
      - xethos 2y ago
        GN has multiple sources, not all based on L1T. They're reviewed here [0], starting around 9:11 [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw
  - paulmd 2y ago
    Server boards don’t mean it’s being run in-spec. The workstation boards will let you configure many parameters out-of-spec and in fact some vendors will configure them out-of-spec by default. For example W680 is definitely capable of configuring memory speeds higher than the official spec (which is only 4400 for any quad-slot board even if not fully populated!). But also things like disabling the current limiting or setting an increased or unlimited power limit. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16959/DRAMADL.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16959/DRAMADL.png Insofar as GN was saying that, it was because Steve was out of his depth and Wendell has had to go out of his way to correct this in subsequent interviews like the one with Ian Cutress. Not the first or the last time GN makes an innocent (or overtly malicious, in some cases) journalistic boo-boo. Not even the first problem with their coverage of this topic, in fact. https://youtu.be/5KHCLBqRrnY?t=2694 https://youtu.be/5KHCLBqRrnY?t=2694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41063806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41063806 People are letting the outrage way overtake the facts here. And this includes the tech media themselves. No, it’s not in-spec just because it’s a server board with w680. Actually asus in particular was shipping with very out-of-spec defaults. People don’t like it when IHVs keep the partners on a short leash. People literally whined about nvidia capping the voltage on Turing, for example. And then things happen (like this, or like AMD’s problems last year with chips physically exploding and deforming from over voltage) and people indignantly ask why the IHVs were allowed to do these things. https://x.com/Sebasti66855537/status/1816955349636710535 https://x.com/Sebasti66855537/status/1816955349636710535 At the time people said this was utter crap, everyone knows electromigration isn’t really a big deal and takes years to even slightly affect anything, assuming it ever does at all. Like you have to really cook a modern processor, like 4.7 GHz sandy bridge for a couple years. 2-3 prompt-electromigration disasters later, it appears that maybe “the community” doesn’t actually have a particularly firm grasp of silicon aging mechanics. Or gpu costs/economics, for that matter ;)
- code_biologist 2y ago
  Those who pushed the limits physically You mean everyone who owns a motherboard from a manufacturer that was given unclear guidance on power delivery from Intel, but also encouraged to make sure their boards benchmarked competitively (by providing enough voltage for clock boosts)? That's pretty much every enthusiast.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrtksn 2y ago
    Right, so maybe a better phrasing would be: They had a design flaw and the voltage they run the CPU would actually be over the limits of what the hardware can tolerate. Those who pushed their CPU to its maximum loads damaged their CPU physically and these are now cooked. The microcode update will limit the voltage, which will result in degraded performance but will prevent damage under load.
    - code_biologist 2y ago
      I don't think you intend it, but your explanations read as pushing culpability to the end user. Running Chrome, webpack, and Docker at the same time will get me to maximum load. Am I at fault for that? The YouTube channel Moore's Law is Dead has info from Intel leakers (grain of salt) that the ring bus is most sensitive to overvoltage and is what's failing. In addition, the leakers say that with Intel's poor earnings they've been under pressure to ship higher margin parts (like a 14900K over a 14700K), and that they've been relaxing the binning standards to ship chips that barely meet the standard as 14900Ks. This is one of reasons 900K parts seem to be most affected. In the channel's analysis, this overbinning exacerbates the failure rate as more cores require more power/voltage delivered to the common power rail the ring bus shares. This is why disabling E cores seems to help stability. This also leads him to conclude that if ring bus failure is on this knife's edge, then those who haven't experienced it likely have golden samples that fully meet the binning standards. All of this is to say: damage has little to do with the workload you've run, and everything to do with your silicon lottery luck on the chip you got.

mrtksn 2y ago

The way I understand it, they had a bug that will run the CPU on higher voltage than the hardware can tolerate. Those who pushed the limits physically damaged their CPU and these are now cooked. The microcode update will limit the voltage, which will result in degraded performance but will prevent damage under load.

hypercube33 2y ago
GN was saying people saw the bugs on chips not pushed at all on workstation boards though.
- xethos 2y ago
  Level One Techs' Wendell was saying the same thing after asking companies running server farms independently. Both got some sketchily-high numbers, in the 25-50% range. This is only looking worse for Intel as days go by.
  - mananaysiempre 2y ago
    GN was quoting L1T and had an interview with Wendell about it, so it’s all the same source effectively.
    - xethos 2y ago
      GN has multiple sources, not all based on L1T. They're reviewed here [0], starting around 9:11 [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw
- paulmd 2y ago
  Server boards don’t mean it’s being run in-spec. The workstation boards will let you configure many parameters out-of-spec and in fact some vendors will configure them out-of-spec by default. For example W680 is definitely capable of configuring memory speeds higher than the official spec (which is only 4400 for any quad-slot board even if not fully populated!). But also things like disabling the current limiting or setting an increased or unlimited power limit. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16959/DRAMADL.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16959/DRAMADL.png Insofar as GN was saying that, it was because Steve was out of his depth and Wendell has had to go out of his way to correct this in subsequent interviews like the one with Ian Cutress. Not the first or the last time GN makes an innocent (or overtly malicious, in some cases) journalistic boo-boo. Not even the first problem with their coverage of this topic, in fact. https://youtu.be/5KHCLBqRrnY?t=2694 https://youtu.be/5KHCLBqRrnY?t=2694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41063806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41063806 People are letting the outrage way overtake the facts here. And this includes the tech media themselves. No, it’s not in-spec just because it’s a server board with w680. Actually asus in particular was shipping with very out-of-spec defaults. People don’t like it when IHVs keep the partners on a short leash. People literally whined about nvidia capping the voltage on Turing, for example. And then things happen (like this, or like AMD’s problems last year with chips physically exploding and deforming from over voltage) and people indignantly ask why the IHVs were allowed to do these things. https://x.com/Sebasti66855537/status/1816955349636710535 https://x.com/Sebasti66855537/status/1816955349636710535 At the time people said this was utter crap, everyone knows electromigration isn’t really a big deal and takes years to even slightly affect anything, assuming it ever does at all. Like you have to really cook a modern processor, like 4.7 GHz sandy bridge for a couple years. 2-3 prompt-electromigration disasters later, it appears that maybe “the community” doesn’t actually have a particularly firm grasp of silicon aging mechanics. Or gpu costs/economics, for that matter ;)
code_biologist 2y ago
Those who pushed the limits physically You mean everyone who owns a motherboard from a manufacturer that was given unclear guidance on power delivery from Intel, but also encouraged to make sure their boards benchmarked competitively (by providing enough voltage for clock boosts)? That's pretty much every enthusiast.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mrtksn 2y ago
  Right, so maybe a better phrasing would be: They had a design flaw and the voltage they run the CPU would actually be over the limits of what the hardware can tolerate. Those who pushed their CPU to its maximum loads damaged their CPU physically and these are now cooked. The microcode update will limit the voltage, which will result in degraded performance but will prevent damage under load.
  - code_biologist 2y ago
    I don't think you intend it, but your explanations read as pushing culpability to the end user. Running Chrome, webpack, and Docker at the same time will get me to maximum load. Am I at fault for that? The YouTube channel Moore's Law is Dead has info from Intel leakers (grain of salt) that the ring bus is most sensitive to overvoltage and is what's failing. In addition, the leakers say that with Intel's poor earnings they've been under pressure to ship higher margin parts (like a 14900K over a 14700K), and that they've been relaxing the binning standards to ship chips that barely meet the standard as 14900Ks. This is one of reasons 900K parts seem to be most affected. In the channel's analysis, this overbinning exacerbates the failure rate as more cores require more power/voltage delivered to the common power rail the ring bus shares. This is why disabling E cores seems to help stability. This also leads him to conclude that if ring bus failure is on this knife's edge, then those who haven't experienced it likely have golden samples that fully meet the binning standards. All of this is to say: damage has little to do with the workload you've run, and everything to do with your silicon lottery luck on the chip you got.