3 ms·

I've had the impression that while this problem is definitely real, it's also suffering from very bad media sensationalism (both mainstream and social) and some

I've had the impression that while this problem is definitely real, it's also suffering from very bad media sensationalism (both mainstream and social) and some very emotional chest thumping a la Boeing. Puget's numbers kind of vindicate that by showing 11th gen was even worse and AMD clearly benefitted from their "underdog", "cult favorite" status. It would be nice if we could be rid of most of this noise so we could get down to what truly matters.

cyanydeez 2y ago
The problem isn't just the propaganda fight, it's that it's basically a heisenbug. Intel, a few months ago, blamed these very failures on motherboard manufacturers and claimed they were overlooking and the failures at that time were their fault. Unless you do a very thorough timeline, you might be confused. But go dig into the last 6 months and you'll see that Intel has either no idea or are absolutely muddying the waters. Neither of these cognitive conclusions should result in Intel looking anything but half rate purveyors of silicon.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- stqism 2y ago
  In a sense, they were partially right, while being wrong. Based on Puget’s data, it’s apparent that motherboard vendors overly aggressive default settings helped contribute to the issue being so prominent, when reasonable settings would fail at a lower rate than comparable zen CPUs. Obviously Intel messed up badly, and those settings shouldn’t result in this behavior, but maybe this will convince system integrators to have more reasonable defaults in the future. In a top end system, we’re already sitting in territory where our GPU is our benchmark, do we really need to default to giving the cpu so much power?
  - jtriangle 2y ago
    They didn't pull those numbers out of thin air, those were intel's specs when those boards were designed. They are, obviously, dangerous specs to run a chip at, hindsight being 2020 and all. Intel trying to pass the buck is as much of a problem as the CPU's themselves really, because now you can't trust them.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      There is nothing "on spec" about 4096W power limits and using the single-core clock multiplier for multi-core boost, among other deviations. Intel programming the voltage curves wrong is on them, but that doesn't matter if the motherboards aren't going to run the CPUs according to specification out of the box. Intel calling out mobo vendors for their stupid defaults was justified and very much needed.
      - krige 2y ago
        The issue is intel guidelines are basically nonsensical and contradictory. What they claim is "recommended" settings is basically three separate sets of options, with no clear indication which is the actual so-called baseline. Which was probably done entirely on purpose as to faciliate blame slinging.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        Intel's specifications are readily available[1][2] to the public. If you can't understand them that's your problem, not Intel's. Incidentally, there is no such thing as a "baseline". Intel separately specifies an "Extreme Config" for applicable SKUs (the i9s), but otherwise there is only the one set of specifications. The fact you are talking about "baseline" suggests you did not actually consult the specifications published by Intel, just like the mobo vendors who put out so-called "Intel Baseline Profiles" before they got chastised again for not actually reading and obeying the specs (and arguably they still don't). [1]: https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/platforms/details/raptor-lake-s/13th-generation-core-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2/processor-line-thermal-and-power-specifications/ https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/plat... [2]: https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/platforms/details/raptor-lake-s/13th-generation-core-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2/vcccore-dc-specifications/ https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/plat...
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    Even Puget's data, which due to their conservative MB configurations have much less Raptor Lake defects than others with aggressive settings, show an essential difference between the defects of Zen 4 and the defects of Raptor Lake. The defects of Zen 4 are random manufacturing defects, so most of them are detected by Puget after assembling and testing their systems, before selling them to customers. On the other hand, most of the Raptor Lake defects happen after some time after selling them to the customers, which implies some kind of wearing mechanism, which either can affect any Raptor Lake CPU or perhaps only CPUs that have some kind of latent defects. Because the Raptor Lake defects happen after some time, it is likely that their number will continue to raise among the already sold systems and the same statistics recomputed after some months might show a higher number of Raptor Lake defects than now.

cyanydeez 2y ago

The problem isn't just the propaganda fight, it's that it's basically a heisenbug. Intel, a few months ago, blamed these very failures on motherboard manufacturers and claimed they were overlooking and the failures at that time were their fault. Unless you do a very thorough timeline, you might be confused. But go dig into the last 6 months and you'll see that Intel has either no idea or are absolutely muddying the waters. Neither of these cognitive conclusions should result in Intel looking anything but half rate purveyors of silicon.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
stqism 2y ago
In a sense, they were partially right, while being wrong. Based on Puget’s data, it’s apparent that motherboard vendors overly aggressive default settings helped contribute to the issue being so prominent, when reasonable settings would fail at a lower rate than comparable zen CPUs. Obviously Intel messed up badly, and those settings shouldn’t result in this behavior, but maybe this will convince system integrators to have more reasonable defaults in the future. In a top end system, we’re already sitting in territory where our GPU is our benchmark, do we really need to default to giving the cpu so much power?
- jtriangle 2y ago
  They didn't pull those numbers out of thin air, those were intel's specs when those boards were designed. They are, obviously, dangerous specs to run a chip at, hindsight being 2020 and all. Intel trying to pass the buck is as much of a problem as the CPU's themselves really, because now you can't trust them.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    There is nothing "on spec" about 4096W power limits and using the single-core clock multiplier for multi-core boost, among other deviations. Intel programming the voltage curves wrong is on them, but that doesn't matter if the motherboards aren't going to run the CPUs according to specification out of the box. Intel calling out mobo vendors for their stupid defaults was justified and very much needed.
    - krige 2y ago
      The issue is intel guidelines are basically nonsensical and contradictory. What they claim is "recommended" settings is basically three separate sets of options, with no clear indication which is the actual so-called baseline. Which was probably done entirely on purpose as to faciliate blame slinging.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        Intel's specifications are readily available[1][2] to the public. If you can't understand them that's your problem, not Intel's. Incidentally, there is no such thing as a "baseline". Intel separately specifies an "Extreme Config" for applicable SKUs (the i9s), but otherwise there is only the one set of specifications. The fact you are talking about "baseline" suggests you did not actually consult the specifications published by Intel, just like the mobo vendors who put out so-called "Intel Baseline Profiles" before they got chastised again for not actually reading and obeying the specs (and arguably they still don't). [1]: https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/platforms/details/raptor-lake-s/13th-generation-core-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2/processor-line-thermal-and-power-specifications/ https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/plat... [2]: https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/platforms/details/raptor-lake-s/13th-generation-core-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2/vcccore-dc-specifications/ https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/plat...
- adrian_b 2y ago
  Even Puget's data, which due to their conservative MB configurations have much less Raptor Lake defects than others with aggressive settings, show an essential difference between the defects of Zen 4 and the defects of Raptor Lake. The defects of Zen 4 are random manufacturing defects, so most of them are detected by Puget after assembling and testing their systems, before selling them to customers. On the other hand, most of the Raptor Lake defects happen after some time after selling them to the customers, which implies some kind of wearing mechanism, which either can affect any Raptor Lake CPU or perhaps only CPUs that have some kind of latent defects. Because the Raptor Lake defects happen after some time, it is likely that their number will continue to raise among the already sold systems and the same statistics recomputed after some months might show a higher number of Raptor Lake defects than now.