Only 'cuz its not pushed as hard with ridiculous single core boost voltages. But if you build a new PC with that CPU, you basically have no upgrade path 'cuz their high end chips are not nearly as reliable enough. You can always go 12900K in the future but thats basically going generation backwards with more cores. For gaming it would be more of a sidegrade.
Intel just needs to start replacing the chips. It is not a matter of if your chip will fail, it's a matter of when. It's unacceptable. The fixes require the chip to be slowed down via power cuts. If the silicon is degrading, this will only slow it down and the customer is not getting the power they purchased. Class action incoming I am sure.
i got a 13600k for my first gaming pc last year. Have't had any issues thus far, but I'm considering dropping back a gen to a 12th gen i7 or i9 to avoid potential issues. Very frustrating that the next gen is going to use a new socket, so i won't be able to jump forward without the hassle of rebuilding on a new motherboard. If (when) I have to do that then I'll absolutely be dumping intel altogether.
Honestly you’ll probably be fine at stock settings if you upgrade regularly, but if you were planning on using these for your next 5-10 year build, might be a good time to reconsider 😬
If they don’t do the right thing , they will likely face that very fate anyway … This isn’t 15 years ago AMD is more than a viable alternative now. I still have a warranty on my Mb and chip, I’m about to replace my z790 formula and i914900ks and go AMD. Thing is, I ,would have stuck it out if Intel did the right thing , my chip is actually great , I’m happy with it’s performance, but knowing that won’t last and they won’t make it right just screams , go AMD
The "why" is to push higher and higher clocks more voltage is needed. For more voltage the number of watts also goes up as Watts = Volts * Amps. The reasoning behind this? The clock you see on the box is the speed of most likely the execution cores. For them to work quicker the voltage needs to be higher though 1.73V it to high. The Intel EUFI hotfix is to move it from 1.73 to 1.5 alike to when we were on the core i 2nd gen chips. The chip shouldn't request above 1.5 Volts but in case it might the chip will be restricted to a maximum of 1.5 Volts. The problem is like with overclocking you push the voltage to get higher clocks to be stable but the life time of the chip is lessened the life time of the chips effected are already lessened. So the part of the chips will not be able to overclock as far will be true but you never should go over 1.5 Volts to a modern CPU anyways. This will also mean that max turbo might also be slower.
I suspect, but could be wrong, that limiting the power kind of keeps the chip from getting to the point of needing to draw "unsafe" voltage levels. Could explain the behavior I saw on my end, but ultimately you're right- everything being combined, it's a mess...
Wow didn't know 13th & 14th gen was fabbed using a different node. I just thought they were just using 10nm ESF. How different is it to 10nm ESF? I'm guessing not by a lot since marketing materials didn't make a big deal out of it?
I believed in you, I took your Intel camp advice, but it was all a pack of l1es! You led us down a dead end road....! Just kidding... all my video editing was done with an AMD FX-8350, and for the past year, a Ryzen 7950x system I built while I was blind.
@@thorium9190 because they're not. What makes you think that they're in trouble? Some (mostly AMD fans) buble making noise for themselves to blow it out of proportion? I have a 12900k, I will go for a 14900k (for my collection) when the prices come down. I don't care and not many do. Intel will be just fine.
@@cosminmcm sure Intel is a mega corporation, they have many sectors, they will most likely recover but this video shows that intel’s reputation will be at the very least, slightly tarnished with a hurt to sales and the company as a whole. AMD CPUs so far provide higher efficiency, performance, upgrade ability and now stability than Intel. I’d love to build a system with Intel if they were only just more efficient and had long support for certain platforms. And clearly since you keep a collection of Intel CPUs, it’s quite obvious you are quite biased to Intel.
There are three people in our house who enjoy PC gaming. Given I can run THREE AMD CPU"s for the same power budget as ONE Intel CPU, then that choice has been made for me. Bonus is the AMD are some of the best for gaming. You'd be a fool not to go with AMD, unless you enjoy wasting money on electricity.
So i5 13400f isn't affected. Sigh.
Only 'cuz its not pushed as hard with ridiculous single core boost voltages. But if you build a new PC with that CPU, you basically have no upgrade path 'cuz their high end chips are not nearly as reliable enough. You can always go 12900K in the future but thats basically going generation backwards with more cores. For gaming it would be more of a sidegrade.
@@MrRoko91 yeah I ordered an I5 12600k
Intel just needs to start replacing the chips. It is not a matter of if your chip will fail, it's a matter of when. It's unacceptable. The fixes require the chip to be slowed down via power cuts. If the silicon is degrading, this will only slow it down and the customer is not getting the power they purchased. Class action incoming I am sure.
Yeah…
i got a 13600k for my first gaming pc last year. Have't had any issues thus far, but I'm considering dropping back a gen to a 12th gen i7 or i9 to avoid potential issues. Very frustrating that the next gen is going to use a new socket, so i won't be able to jump forward without the hassle of rebuilding on a new motherboard. If (when) I have to do that then I'll absolutely be dumping intel altogether.
Honestly you’ll probably be fine at stock settings if you upgrade regularly, but if you were planning on using these for your next 5-10 year build, might be a good time to reconsider 😬
Intel cannot afford to do the right thing here and do a recall..... they would literally cease to be causing the whole pc industry to crash and burn
Yeah, if not a crash then a major market shift
If they don’t do the right thing , they will likely face that very fate anyway …
This isn’t 15 years ago
AMD is more than a viable alternative now.
I still have a warranty on my Mb and chip, I’m about to replace my z790 formula and i914900ks and go AMD.
Thing is, I ,would have stuck it out if Intel did the right thing , my chip is actually great , I’m happy with it’s performance, but knowing that won’t last and they won’t make it right just screams , go AMD
@@ProceuTech AMD would have a literal monopoly
Why do we need 500 watt chips in the 1st place??
The "why" is to push higher and higher clocks more voltage is needed. For more voltage the number of watts also goes up as Watts = Volts * Amps. The reasoning behind this? The clock you see on the box is the speed of most likely the execution cores. For them to work quicker the voltage needs to be higher though 1.73V it to high. The Intel EUFI hotfix is to move it from 1.73 to 1.5 alike to when we were on the core i 2nd gen chips. The chip shouldn't request above 1.5 Volts but in case it might the chip will be restricted to a maximum of 1.5 Volts.
The problem is like with overclocking you push the voltage to get higher clocks to be stable but the life time of the chip is lessened the life time of the chips effected are already lessened.
So the part of the chips will not be able to overclock as far will be true but you never should go over 1.5 Volts to a modern CPU anyways. This will also mean that max turbo might also be slower.
It's not power per se, this is happening on low power limit motherboards as well. It's voltage and single core boost - always has been.
I suspect, but could be wrong, that limiting the power kind of keeps the chip from getting to the point of needing to draw "unsafe" voltage levels. Could explain the behavior I saw on my end, but ultimately you're right- everything being combined, it's a mess...
Wow didn't know 13th & 14th gen was fabbed using a different node. I just thought they were just using 10nm ESF. How different is it to 10nm ESF? I'm guessing not by a lot since marketing materials didn't make a big deal out of it?
It’s actually an entire PDK update over base Intel 7 (10nm ESF), same “node” but also different at the same time. Similar to how 14nm+++ is to 14nm
I believed in you, I took your Intel camp advice, but it was all a pack of l1es!
You led us down a dead end road....!
Just kidding... all my video editing was done with an AMD FX-8350, and for the past year, a Ryzen 7950x system I built while I was blind.
😥😥😥
No, they're not.
yes, they are. They could very likey be hit with punitive damages by the FTC if failure rates are as high as reported. Stop fan boying
@@FatTony1 no, they're not
@@cosminmcmwhy do you say that?
@@thorium9190 because they're not. What makes you think that they're in trouble? Some (mostly AMD fans) buble making noise for themselves to blow it out of proportion? I have a 12900k, I will go for a 14900k (for my collection) when the prices come down. I don't care and not many do. Intel will be just fine.
@@cosminmcm sure Intel is a mega corporation, they have many sectors, they will most likely recover but this video shows that intel’s reputation will be at the very least, slightly tarnished with a hurt to sales and the company as a whole. AMD CPUs so far provide higher efficiency, performance, upgrade ability and now stability than Intel. I’d love to build a system with Intel if they were only just more efficient and had long support for certain platforms. And clearly since you keep a collection of Intel CPUs, it’s quite obvious you are quite biased to Intel.
There are three people in our house who enjoy PC gaming.
Given I can run THREE AMD CPU"s for the same power budget as ONE Intel CPU, then that choice has been made for me.
Bonus is the AMD are some of the best for gaming.
You'd be a fool not to go with AMD, unless you enjoy wasting money on electricity.