Around the 10th gen or so, Intel seems to be juicing up their cpus in order to look competitive with Ryzen cpus.

And Intel has done this sort of thing in the past, just not to the extent of what is going on now.

This problem has just gotten way worse since. The current 13th/14th gen cpus will be degraded at stock settings because Intel has ridiculously high power limits. The default limits are already very high and the 'extreme' ICCmax for 150W TDP 13th/14th gen cpus is 400A is clearly crazy high. The average pc builder or gamer is not going to know that leaving the settings at default will degrade their cpus permanently in a few short months.

Recently Nvidia pushed back by telling users with Raptor Lake cpus to contact Intel after getting "out of video memory" errors.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/...t-intel-support
And even worse, it looks like the Raptor Lake cpus have degraded in a few months to a point where crashing occurs.
https://www.lowyat.net/2024/320284/gamers-r...-cpus-en-masse/

Sad to see how Intel sunk to to the level where they are putting the blame on mobo manufacturers for not enforcing limits LOWER than their own specs for long term reliability.

Yes...and I have to downvolt + limit power for my 14700k to prevent high temperature...cilaka

In fact AMD CPU and GPU now is the best performance/price. If not because of Intel's good marketing...

Time to buy AMD stock or better to top up NVDA?

Fish tank case more cantik At first I want to for O11 Vision some more...that 1 the airflow lagi teruk

Don't worry , be happy.. I think more and more mobo maker will include something like Intel DEFAULT setting to help users trobleshoot their PC issue(if any).
Since, Asus already Introduce "Intel Baseline Profile option " in their latest BIOS..it is a positive move, I think..

although u have to choose between Stability or Performance ..
https://twitter.com/9550pro/status/1781481593972129929

p/s: IMHO, I think even gen 12nd and some of the non-K might also face similar issue. (that's just my personal thought, don't quote me please).  

Im glad i went with amd am5

Considered getting 12/13th gen i5 1X400 chip...

But the no upgrade path after 14th gen made me reconsidered.

I think it is a good feature lah..  although not everybody need to use it..
At least if sb think their build got some stable issue even without turn on XMP, then they can straight forward turn on this switch  .
and if the problem still persist, then they can straight forward go to claim warranty(this only just  my opinion) , no need to gaduh with the PC shop or any Seller..  

Anyway, we still need to wait the officer investigation result from intel, to see if they find anything interesting..

ARM maybe, but RISC-V, tired of YT headline RISC-V is the future for many years already.
seems like only intel make mistake while AMD make money.

not an AMD & intel fan boi 
this year ARM laptop from qualcomm will hit the market (again), see how it goes.

i like macOS, but i dont like apple.

for now. microsoft is currently betting on snapdragon x elite for their Windows on ARM. snapdragon x elite does look promising.

however, x86-64 may not be going anywhere soon despite the rising popularity of RISC-based instruction set architectures (ISAs).

the reason why windows still requiring x86-64 (for now) is because they have a lot of legacy codes that are dependent on x86 ISA. many wizards we use in windows today can be dated back to win95. this is why x86-64 hangs around for so long -- backwards compatibility for the past 20+ years. hell even intel 8086-based software can run on modern x86 CPUs with little tweaking. people may attribute better efficiency to ARM, but it really matter not on the difference in ISAs, but how CPU vendors are pushing at which direction while designing their CPUs. for so long both AMD and Intel been pushing towards high performance (both of them compete in high performance computing while having a lower priority on battery life), while Qualcomm and Apple have been pushing for efficiency (both of them compete in mobile space and therefore having handful of experience on low power operations).

a good read of RISC vs CISC if you're into a bit of technicality: https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-o...-doesnt-matter/
if u don't already know, x86-64 is CISC-based while ARM and RISC-V are RISC-based

Last major breakthrough is Sandy Bridge. Its been a while. Today, Intel is still behind when comes to the hardware. They still able to keep up. Just with a lot more power.

There are candidates for new materials. Like 100Ghz nanocarbon I think. I think no one able to get it stable.

Lots of things to consider too. Now we have a lot of hackers cracking it. Security patch usually nerfs the processors.

To be fair, I don't think 7800X3D  cases  affect much people, since it was very expensive by that time, not many people bought it ,and the problem was solved  fast .
The intel  issue affect more widely, and cause more 'brain' damage, although it seems not deadly so far.. 

p/s: I think people already given Intel special vip treatment, not may posts was created. if this intel inccident were happen on AMD, cannot imaging how many posts and threads will be created  from those angry users..

U can have ur own different opinion on the matter or the product. (this is what's forum exist for)
but suka suka shout out fanbois this fanbios that, it is not nice... 

Seems that intel will pulish a officer announcement this month, so they do know how serious the issue is.

p/s: I only mention the that x3d burning issue after sb had mention about it , although it is simply unrelated issue to the topic.

amd one is worse, it may turn into fire hazard

No PCIe 4?  Not that much of a problem for most GPUs unless you are talking something about RX6400/6500XT with their nerfed PCIe x4 interface.  Even the mighty 4090 only loses about 2% performance on PCIe 3.0 x16:

On the SSD side of things there's not much difference between PCIe 3.0 and 4.0 either for gaming

USB 3.2?  That's more or less belong to the 'nice to have' territory rather than must haves, and even that can be done with a PCIe card if you really need one

and that is what apple is doing extremely right, and at times their low power operation performance is rivaling AMD/Intel high end CPUs which are using 4-5x more power for the same operation. their M4 has just been released recently, with MT performance closing in a 13700K, and ST performance obliterating many, if not all, modern x86 CPUs. a BASE M4 is doing that? at 5x less power? node advantage + SME aside, cannot dismiss what Apple has been doing and they're definitely putting more pressure on AMD/Intel. ESPECIALLY INTEL.

M2/M3 era has already seen the chip performing faster than x86 counterparts in a number of applications such as in Adobe apps, DaVinci Resolve and Handbrake. new M4 era will be another eye opener similar to M2.

with M4 being released this early, Qualcomm is shitting themselves too. I mentioned I had faith previously on X Elite but things do change fast within a month. X Elite is due for >1 year now. after their shoddy X Plus reveal a few weeks ago, rough rumors are saying they're in a very messy situation rn. we'll see how Qualcomm handles this.
hence why x86 is living for backwards compatibility to cater for relic systems. been so long since 8086 era.

however, it really isn't x86 fault for the "slowness" simply because it's just an ISA. a good uarch (microarchitecture, or simply CPU design) will yield great results. Apple has greatly improved their uarch to gain higher frequency, as well as shoving in ARM SME into it, even with small IPC gain (and still yield ~25% improvement over M3).

You can also has inefficient ARM cores either if you clocked them to the moon, note that power scales linearly with frequency, and a factor of 2 with voltage
This is why high clock speeds can be a bad thing if the process node or the architecture are not built for it (even Intel admits it on their slide deck, see their flat-ish curves on the power scaling chart):

https://download.intel.com/newsroom/2022/cl...nalyst-deck.pdf

But then for some reason, despite the huge advances in x86 efficiency we still have ridiculously inefficient chips because both Intel/AMD practically clocked them up to near unsustainable levels (I mean, why does 5GHz+ ULV mobile chips and 6GHz+ desktop chips exist?) 

Anyway let's get back to the topic, we're getting a bit derailed there - the original topic is Intel's 14th gen stability issues, not a discussion between ISA and power efficiency

Yeah, but that'll require wider, larger core designs, which are not area efficient and will need larger dies unless you want AMD/Intel to cannibalize their far more profitable server/HPC business that is