Owners of 13th/14th Gen Raptor Lake CPUs - Media Reports of serious stability issues

[FlyingScot]

This information is being offered with the intention of keeping owners of these CPUs informed, i.e. knowledge is power. Perhaps if enough people become aware of this situation (and the information provided is indeed accurate) then maybe Intel will offer affected users alternative remedies other than the usual warranty replacement process.

Owners of 13th/14th gen i9’s are reporting what looks like rapid degradation over a period of months that leads to sudden instability. Users are then forced to increase voltage and/or drop boost frequencies to stabilize their systems. In some cases, this problem resurfaces and requires the same approach to be repeated. Another major cause of concern raised in the video, and in user comments, is the stability of the Integrated Memory Control (IMC) and the relationship to DDR5 frequencies above 4200. Random instability due to IMC issues, and perhaps degradation of the IMC, cannot be ruled out. This is clearly a story that is still developing. Owners of i9 CPUs, and indeed all Raptor Lake CPUs, should stay tuned. Follow up videos on this story are promised by Steve at Gamers Nexus.

What’s most alarming about this situation is the fact that even users who took every preventative safety measure, i.e. not overclocking, low PL1/PL2, good cooling, even undervolting, etc., are still reporting instability after just a few months of usage, presumably from what could be degradation. And, judging from user comments, these issues may not just be limited to the i9's.

I do not own one of these chips, but I have been following this story with great interest.

UPDATE 1: For folks who want a quick way to see where things stand at the moment, I suggest you start reading this thread from here. In the first post by forum member, CiTay, you will find several relevant links of importance. I will endeavour to keep adding to this shortcut list as events develop.

UPDATE 2: By now, many of you will be aware that Intel and the motherboard manufacturers have collaborated to release new BIOS code to address the Raptor Lake instability and degradation issues. Should you choose to update to the latest BIOS (with microcode 0x129) and then experience thermal and/or performance issues, you may find this new guide helpful in addressing those concerns.

UPDATE 3: [Sep 26, 2024] Intel and the motherboard manufacturers have collaborated to release new BIOS code (0x12B) to address the Raptor Lake instability and degradation issues. For more information, jump to the following post in this thread.

ADDITION 1: Don't forget to stop by our very own online Raptor Lake Survey, where you can see how others have configured their Raptor Lake systems to balance performance and stability, and to reduce the risk of degradation. You can check it out here.

UPDATE 4: [May 1, 2025]: Intel releases 0x12F microcode, which includes a fix for voltage management issues for PCs that are left powered on for days on end, with long periods of idle. See more information here.

 

[MigraineFilms]

I think everyone’s opinion in the last few posts I have read (including this one) are correct, so let me take a stab at summarizing the situation to make it the most inclusive:

First, in regard to looking at other motherboard vendors for clarity or guidance, that’s just a symptom of BuildZoid using Gigabyte and ASUS more that MSI, which is odd in a way because he thinks the MSI BIOS is the most intuitive to use. BuildZoid’s insights are unfortunately just too valuable for us to ignore, even if they are not 100% relevant. I personally just try to balance out the issue of him using non-MSI boards by watching as many MSI videos as possible, with JayZ’s recent video being a good example.

My other point [MigraineFilms, you may need to close your eyes for this one since you have a 14900K]

For my clarification: the i9 was such a clusterfuck that they put that limiter on it no matter what settings you changed, right? Thought I saw that somewhere

 

[FlyingScot]

For my clarification: the i9 was such a clusterfuck that they put that limiter on it no matter what settings you changed, right? Thought I saw that somewhere

For my clarification: the i9 was such a clusterfuck that they put that limiter on it no matter what settings you changed, right? Thought I saw that somewhere

Do you happen to remember where you read/heard that? That would be good for you and other i9 owners if that’s true. I do continue to think this 0x129 microcode was aimed at the i9 issues. That’s what all the servers run. So that kind of approach would make sense. I mean, it’s not like the microcode/BIOS has to guess what CPU you are using, right?

Well, let’s see if we can gather more info on this limiter thing. In the meantime, I think doing the kind of things you have done, especially keeping IccMax on the more conservative side (307A and below), should help to mitigate any risk in the event of the 1.55v limiter getting deactivated.

MigraineFilm, you are going to be the trailblazer here. If your CPU is humming along fine in a year or two then we have our confirmation that under-volting and under-clocking is still necessary in the Intel world. In fact, I personally think the best course of action might be for us to soldier on as if we never heard of the 1.55v limiter. Intel was supposed to bring an end to our worries and confusion. Instead, they have just muddied the waters even more, in my opinion. Way to go, Intel.

 

[SyntheticStatus]

@citay, question if I may: why are only some of these CPUs degrading rapidly?

Watching YT videos on this news story (and indeed reading Reddit threads) it looks like every 13th and 14th gen CPU is affected and will have a shorter lifespan than CPUs of past generations. I understand there is a complaint bias here - the majority only post when they're having issues - but is there a chance that only a small percentage of these CPUs will ever display symptoms of degredation before they naturally become obsolete? Even 1% would be hugely problematic for Intel, but I can't help feeling that people with issues are in the minority, no matter how significant.

What do you think?

Based on the available information from multiple sources, this is likely where we stand:
1. The CPUs most affected are the 14900k/ks/kf and the 13900k/ks/kf; but of those two, the 14900k is in far worse shape
2. The problem is the "fabric" part of the CPU degrades when exposed to >1.55V
3. The extra push Intel gave the 14900k over the 13900k seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back; while the 13900k failure rate in-spec was a little higher than usual, it was no cause for concern - but the 14900k's failure rate in-spec is.
4. Most 13900k owners if they run their chip within spec (e.g. no more than pl1=pl2=253w) likely will not have degradation even without the microcode
5. In contrast, an unacceptable amount of 14900k chips will still have degradation even if the chip is run within spec; but they will be fixed from future degradation by the microcode
6. If you apply the 0x129 microcode and run the 13900k/14900k within spec, there should be no concerns for degradation moving forwards; IMO most of what you are seeing on this is fearmongering for clicks
7. The Alderon games high failure rate was likely a result of combination of improper BIOS settings on their server motherboards and the specific workloads they were using, both exacerbating the microcode flaw
8. If you've had instability prior to the 0x129 microcode, the CPU may be permanently damaged and Intel will replace it with a new one so long as you bought a retail boxed version; once you get the replacement and patch it up with 0x129, there should be no cause for concern

 

[FlyingScot]

BuildZoid dropped the hint that he knows what the issue is, but hasn’t yet come up with a way to present that information in under an hour. On the surface, it sounds complicated. I, for one, hope he does that video. It might not change anything, but it might just give us some needed clarity.

Synthetic, you make things sound so simple. I hope you’re right. But from all the Intel I have gathered, Intel is a highly disfunctional company in a financial tailspin. The pressure on them to cut corners is and was no doubt irresistible. We can’t rule out that there are still things we don’t fully understand yet. I’m not saying the sky is falling, and all the chips are going to blow up, etc. But I do think we are not getting the whole picture yet.

 

[SyntheticStatus]

BuildZoid dropped the hint that he knows what the issue is, but hasn’t yet come up with a way to present that information in under an hour. On the surface, it sounds complicated. I, for one, hope he does that video. It might not change anything, but it might just give us some needed clarity.

Synthetic, you make things sound so simple. I hope you’re right. But from all the Intel I have gathered, Intel is a highly disfunctional company in a financial tailspin. The pressure on them to cut corners is and was no doubt irresistible. We can’t rule out that there are still things we don’t fully understand yet. I’m not saying the sky is falling, and all the chips are going to blow up, etc. But I do think we are not getting the whole picture yet.

I think it is as simple as that, personally. A lot of this may have been caused by Intel's overestimation on what their silicon bins could withstand. There may be other complexities as to what triggers the high voltage, but it seems the high voltage is what kills the CPU so that is the most important factor. The >1.55V number was likely not picked arbitrarily, they likely were able to replicate in the lab that this is where the CPU dies. It also makes sense that the 14900k is experiencing more degradation this being the case, as it is pushed harder than the 13900k and hence voltages are higher.

 

[MigraineFilms]

Im just still very anxious because I dont want my CPU to degrade. I dont do any workloads due to it, just gaming which keeps it at max 1,36 volt, underclocked and undervolted.

I refrain from any video rendering until the microcode gets release for my tomahawk z790 max. Its making me so damn anxious

 

[FlyingScot]

I think it is as simple as that, personally. A lot of this may have been caused by Intel's overestimation on what their silicon bins could withstand. There may be other complexities as to what triggers the high voltage, but it seems the high voltage is what kills the CPU so that is the most important factor. The >1.55V number was likely not picked arbitrarily, they likely were able to replicate in the lab that this is where the CPU dies. It also makes sense that the 14900k is experiencing more degradation this being the case, as it is pushed harder than the 13900k and hence voltages are higher.

I think what many people are now questioning is why it took Intel so long (at least a year or more) to reach that conclusion. You can never rule out company politics and the decisions of management. It's not just a technical problem.

 

[SyntheticStatus]

I think what many people are now questioning is why it took Intel so long (at least a year or more) to reach that conclusion. You can never rule out company politics and the decisions of management. It's not just a technical problem.

That is actually easily explainable as well. If you look at the Puget Systems and other major retailer data made public, the 13900k's failure rate wasn't outstanding - while not as low as 10th/12th gen, it was much lower than 11th gen even after years. It wasn't about until 6 months into 14th gen that things started to go badly for mainstream users and primarily with 14900k specifically. It just so happens that the voltage issue identified that was killing 14th gen, also was leading to the higher than usual (but not outstanding) 13900k failure rate.

In other words, if Meteor Lake was released as 14th gen instead of Raptor Lake Refresh, it is likely no one would have even known or cared about this other than edge-cases such as the Alderon games situation.

 

[FlyingScot]

Im just still very anxious because I dont want my CPU to degrade. I dont do any workloads due to it, just gaming which keeps it at max 1,36 volt, underclocked and undervolted.

I refrain from any video rendering until the microcode gets release for my tomahawk z790 max. Its making me so damn anxious

MigraineFilms, you are fine. Please don't be anxious. It's just my own personal need to try to understand what really got us in this situation. It's certainly one for the history books. So just ignore me on that front until I have something useful to share. It's a parallel effort to what you and I have been working on. You're already in a really good place in my opinion. So use the chip to do what you need it to do. We'll keep tuning. Try the 0x129 code. You'll soon see if you like its effect or not. If not, drop back. You are still very much in the driver's seat.

 

[SyntheticStatus]

Looking at the Puget data the moral of the story is don't buy an Intel CPU generation that is a last minute "Plan B" product insert.

The CPUs that failed the most over the past 5 years have been 11th gen and 14th gen. Both of these generations were "plan B" releases. Meaning, 11th gen "rocket lake" was only released because their 10nm process was broken when they were very sure it was going to be in order. That CPU was a last minute backport of a 10nm design onto a 14nm process, because as Comet Lake maximized performance of both the 14nm process and skylake architecture, they would essentially have no product with pcie4 architecture to release for 11th gen if they didn't do something like Rocket Lake (10th gen was already outdated on release by not having pcie4). Then 14th gen "raptor lake refresh" also was a Plan B, as originally Meteor Lake with its higher IPC was supposed to be in that slot, but again bad yields forced intel into a Plan B which was basically overclocked 13th gen; my guess is that 13th gen was already at the max of what the process could handle, and pushing power and voltage even further without adequate testing in 14th gen ultimately led to where we are today.

 

[FlyingScot]

That is actually easily explainable as well. If you look at the Puget Systems and other major retailer data made public, the 13900k's failure rate wasn't outstanding - while not as low as 10th/12th gen, it was much lower than 11th gen even after years. It wasn't about until 6 months into 14th gen that things started to go badly for mainstream users and primarily with 14900k specifically. It just so happens that the voltage issue identified that was killing 14th gen, also was leading to the higher than usual (but not outstanding) 13900k failure rate.

In other words, if Meteor Lake was released as 14th gen instead of Raptor Lake Refresh, it is likely no one would have even known or cared about this other than edge-cases such as the Alderon games situation.

For the most part, I can go along with that logic....especially if you add in the normal human reaction being a state of denial about the seriousness of the issue. It's the same pattern of behaviour we see with every company that has faced increased failure rates. Gamers Nexus covers those issues on almost a monthly basis. It's not likely that will ever change.

 

[FlyingScot]

Looking at the Puget data the moral of the story is don't buy an Intel CPU generation that is a last minute "Plan B" product insert.

The CPUs that failed the most over the past 5 years have been 11th gen and 14th gen. Both of these generations were "plan B" releases. Meaning, 11th gen "rocket lake" was only released because their 10nm process was broken when they were very sure it was going to be in order. That CPU was a last minute backport of a 10nm design onto a 14nm process, because as Comet Lake maximized performance of both the 14nm process and skylake architecture, they would essentially have no product with pcie4 architecture to release for 11th gen if they didn't do something like Rocket Lake (10th gen was already outdated on release by not having pcie4). Then 14th gen "raptor lake refresh" also was a Plan B, as originally Meteor Lake with its higher IPC was supposed to be in that slot, but again bad yields forced intel into a Plan B which was basically overclocked 13th gen; my guess is that 13th gen was already at the max of what the process could handle, and pushing power and voltage even further without adequate testing in 14th gen ultimately led to where we are today.

Well, I guess we should be blaming AMD then. I mean, how dare they put Intel under such pressure to increase performance every year! Those Pentium days were the best, weren't they?

 

[SyntheticStatus]

Well, I guess we should be blaming AMD then. I mean, how dare they put Intel under such pressure to increase performance every year! Those Pentium days were the best, weren't they?

Pentium FDIV bug - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[FlyingScot]

Pentium FDIV bug - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, I knew about that one. But it was the one failure in an otherwise untarnished record.

 

[LargeMan]

I have been trying to find out some definitive information about what chips are affected with this. I have an i7-13700f and have had no issues so far since I got it in a pre-build back in May. I have been keeping an eye on things with HWInfo64, temps are good, averaging 38-45 when under load with a few spikes to 58c, and the Vcore never gets higher than 1.38. I have an ASRock mobo (I know this is an MSI forum, but this post came up in google search and I am desperate for answers). The microcode update has been sent out for my board, but I have been hearing people having issues with getting the update, including higher temps and instability with it so it concerns me greatly. I have no clue how to do a bios update (it is way too complicated for me to understand) and was thinking of having Best Buy, where I bought the pc, do the bios update for me. This whole thing is setting off my anxiety to the point of panic attacks.

 

[FlyingScot]

I have been trying to find out some definitive information about what chips are affected with this. I have an i7-13700f and have had no issues so far since I got it in a pre-build back in May. I have been keeping an eye on things with HWInfo64, temps are good, averaging 38-45 when under load with a few spikes to 58c, and the Vcore never gets higher than 1.38. I have an ASRock mobo (I know this is an MSI forum, but this post came up in google search and I am desperate for answers). The microcode update has been sent out for my board, but I have been hearing people having issues with getting the update, including higher temps and instability with it so it concerns me greatly. I have no clue how to do a bios update (it is way too complicated for me to understand) and was thinking of having Best Buy, where I bought the pc, do the bios update for me. This whole thing is setting off my anxiety to the point of panic attacks.

That’s the sad thing about this microcode rollout. It was meant to be a fix. But for many people it has caused confusion, anxiety and even undesirable results. It has the potential to make a bad situation even worse, which is sad. I think I would lean towards not doing anything at this point. If temps look good and voltages look good, especially with a non-K CPU, then keep on enjoying it. I‘d only go the Best Buy route if they say it’s needed for warranty reasons.

 

[LargeMan]

That is why I wished Intel would put out something that would identify which chips were bad or at least tell everyone what batch is bad so people would at least know. All this mystery about it is frustrating. And to have a few people on reddit telling me to get the microcode as well as undervolting when I have NO clue how to do so without bricking my pc is even more annoying. I am not an enthusiast, so all that is literal Greek to me. I just want some peace of mind and Intel ain't giving it. Just saying that all 13th/14th gen chips COULD be affected does NOT help.

Are there any issues I need to watch out for and has anyone heard of any i7 13700f being affected?

 

[crimson8814f802d4]

That’s the sad thing about this microcode rollout. It was meant to be a fix. But for many people it has caused confusion, anxiety and even undesirable results. It has the potential to make a bad situation even worse, which is sad. I think I would lean towards not doing anything at this point. If temps look good and voltages look good, especially with a non-K CPU, then keep on enjoying it. I‘d only go the Best Buy route if they say it’s needed for warranty reasons.

I believe Citay (correct me if I’m wrong Citay) said everyone with access to the new ucode should implement it immediately.

I am considering going back to an older, more stable version due to the changes in Vids, Vcore, and temps.

What do you reckon @FlyingScot ?

 

[FlyingScot]

I believe Citay (correct me if I’m wrong Citay) said everyone with access to the new ucode should implement it immediately.

I am considering going back to an older, more stable version due to the changes in Vids, Vcore, and temps.

What do you reckon @FlyingScot ?

Oh boy, you had to go and pull me back in when I thought I had escaped. Oh well, here goes. Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more…

If you want the honest truth, I just don’t know anymore. I could be accused of being a little bipolar on this one, myself. In fact, I have a good friend, an Italian friend, a very funny friend, who loves to say “Hey, I talk myself in and out of things all the time!“ Well, that’s kind of where I find myself, and you can quickly reach a point of exhaustion, which is not so funny. I think I see lots of us who have reached this point in one way or another. Then there are others out there who are supremely confident in marching forward without hesitation. They believe that Intel is operating in good faith, and there’s no hidden agenda. I think we’ll call this point the emotional side of this issue.

Speaking of the emotional side of things, I have been building computers since the late 90’s (seven in total), and I don’t ever remember a time when emotion had much to do with it. That’s what is so unique about this situation. And I blame Intel for that, 100%.

Now, to the question of the technical side, here’s where I think I land:

1. If you have an i9, especially a 14th gen, then I think you have no choice but to install the new BIOS release. You need that 1.55V limiter microcode as your base, and then you tune from there and hope your changes don’t somehow deactivate it. But hey, if they do…and your chip dies…well that’s on Intel. So make them give you a new CPU. If you get two years out of the first and two years out of the second then four years ain’t so bad.

2. If you have an i5, I would like to believe that you are fine either way. You should be running voltages below 1.35V most of the time (assuming you didn’t get a silicon lemon due to binning) which leaves plenty of headroom for spikes up to what Intel themselves are saying is safe, i.e, 1.55V. I’m not saying it’s safe; I‘m just saying that Intel is saying it’s safe.

3. If you have an i7, which is what most people on this forum have, then the decision can become more subjective again. I’ll try and break it down into pieces. If you have a 13th gen, especially if you have done the kind of tuning that Vassil_V has done (see his thread), then I think I would use the same logic as I did above for the i5. If you have a 14th gen then I think I would follow what I said about the i9, with one caveat. If you are really happy with your manual tuning, especially if you have under-volted and under-clocked, then I would not throw all that away just to upgrade if that means it‘s impossible to keep these settings (or just slightly adjusted for shifts in CPU Lite Load relationship to AC_LL) and ends up making your chip run hotter, more power hungry and/or with much lower performance. I just won’t do it!

Well, wrapping things up. That’s the best advice I can give anyone on this side of hindsight…because we just don’t know what we don’t know. And until you know what you don’t know, you cannot make a plan that anticipates for trouble.

I do hope this message helps to bring an end to the debate that many of us are struggling with. I think we just have to accept the fact that no one on this forum, or any other forum, can give you 100% assurance that the choice you make is going to be the right one in the long run. What might help us come to terms with that is this. If the very worst happens, which means you need to buy a new CPU with your own money, it‘s not the worst thing that ever happened to you, or will happen to you. After all, we spend far more money trying to keep our appliances running than we do our PCs.

Cheers!
FlyingScot

 

[crimson8814f802d4]

Great answer @FlyingScot !