Why Intel Is Still Selling i9 14900K with 80% Unstable?

Edyolo on 06/05/2024 - 02:41

Recently 13/14th gen i9 have been under scrutiny for “unstable” in stock setting. Especially with the recently news uncovered 80% of the i9 14900K being “unstable”.

https://wccftech.com/only-5-out-of-10-core-i9-13900k-2-out-o…

Then the questions goes, why the retailers are still “SELLING” them? It’s like trying to deliberately sell a faulty product to customers. For example:

https://www.centrecom.com.au/intel-14th-gen-core-i9-14900k-2…

It’s also sold without “ANY” warning. I know Intel is currently doing investigation, but why are they not halt the sale?

It seems like money is more important to intel than their customers and their branding.

Computing Computer Component CPU Intel LGA1700

Comments

  • Edyolo on 06/05/2024 - 02:45
    -1

    The current price is $879. The retailer and manufacturer Intel promised 100% working (warranty and Australian consumer law). Now you only have 20% chance for it to work at “the time of purchase”. Does this means you can ask 80% of the purchase price back? Since:

    1. The retailer knows 80% would fail.
  • Edyolo on 06/05/2024 - 02:48
    -1

    13900K @5.8Ghz with 60% chance failing, 14900K @ 6Ghz with 80% chance failing.

    14900KS @ 6.2Ghz = 100% chance failing?

    If my linear regression is correct.

  • garetz on 06/05/2024 - 04:27
    +7

    You are conflating information here, it is not that they are failing, they are not reaching their maximum clock at a stable configuration.

    This has more to do with the asus boards settings at stock than the cpu itself. The motherboard pushes it too hard.

    • Edyolo on 06/05/2024 - 09:18
      -2

      Still failed with Gigabyte boards. “Not reaching maximum clock”, is that failure?

      I mean i9 reaching i7 level of performance. You accept that?

    • Edyolo on 06/05/2024 - 09:21
      -2

      And intel used these “Extreme” motherboard profile in their slides to benchmark against AMD’s X3D series.

      False advertisement then?

      • 7ekn00 on 06/05/2024 - 13:02

        They need to do something, they can't beat AMD otherwise :/

        They have done this K > KS Extreme profile bullsh!t for the last few generations ;)

        This time around, they just happened to overstep the abilities of their silicon and got caught out!

        Just apply the setting mentioned (by OMGJL) in your last post and move on, you won't lose that much performance :/

  • AngoraFish on 06/05/2024 - 06:18
    +2

    "The main reason is yet to be determined but it looks like fixes being rolled out by board makers shed some light on the issue which happen to do with their BIOS releases which set these chips at their "Extreme" power profiles rather than using the baseline limits set by Intel itself."

    • Edyolo on 06/05/2024 - 09:16

      It still fail in baseline according to the reports. Also, board makers have been using these “Extreme” profile for years.

  • mskeggs on 06/05/2024 - 07:15

    Does the maths co-processor do additions correctly?

    • BigBirdy on 06/05/2024 - 09:14
      +2

      If you want floating points, build a raft

  • payless69 on 06/05/2024 - 10:23

    intel helps people switching to the M3

    • Edyolo on 06/05/2024 - 10:32
      -2

      Nah Apple is not really your friend. More like AMD

      • Drakesy on 06/05/2024 - 11:33
        +1

        Or AMG

      • FireRunner on 06/05/2024 - 22:36

        Don’t be fooled into thinking any business is your friend.

  • OMGJL on 06/05/2024 - 11:08
    +8

    I've told you what setting to apply for your other post, you won't lose much performance (after all you still get the full 36MB L3 cache). Stop ranting, applying the setting I provided and move on with your life.

    • djsweet on 07/05/2024 - 09:58

      I get where you are coming from. And I would do what you suggest. However, there is definitely a case to be made for the sale of goods not fit for purpose. Intel should not be selling chips that can’t perform within their advertised parameters.

      • OMGJL on 07/05/2024 - 10:33
        +1

        While I do definitely agree that intel is being dog shit right now about how they have no QA, and how they handled the situation by blaming mobo manufacturer,

        the actual solution they give out is a bit similar to what AMD did for their eariler Zen2 CPUs. Though AMD didn't suffer from stability issues hence they didn't have that much complaints.

        let me break it down to you: (disclaimer: I don't favour one company over another, after all they just want to grab your money, I pick the one that's less greedy for the time being)

        Zen2 have labeled a boost frequency that is very hard to accomplish on their earlier batches, people complain that they never see their CPU boosted to that frequency ever — AMD soon made motherboard manufacturer released new BIOS updates to apply more voltage in super light loads to boost the CPU higher, yet it doesn't improve performance what so ever —- frequency drops down under heavy load anyway.

        Intel did almost the same, they applied several performance restrictors (freq' drops down under heavy load), and applied more aggressive load line (more voltage in light load). Except Intel's boosting algorithm is different to AMD.

        what Intel advertise for max freq' is actually single core boost. take 14900k as example.

        6.0Ghz -> Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost Frequency (only boost a single core when temperature allows)
        5.7Ghz -> actual all core boost (validated by reviewer —- not even advertised anywhere anyway)

        my point is….. intel can get away with this BS, technically they are not false advertising (yes it boosted to 6Ghz), they never advertised saying their CPU can reach whatever benchmark scores —- it was all reviewers who published testing result, nothing "official"

        • postnut on 11/05/2024 - 09:55

          you're right, this is a hole that intel legally dug for themselves and legally jumped into, and they're gonna have a royally sore bottom line after this.
          gamers should be buying the 7800x3d anyways, elsewhere in the lineup a higher core count zen4 provides productivity focused alternative.

          what remains of intel's loyal customer base is in shambles, and most OEM's charges more for Intel platforms still.

          the most (profanity) up thing is looking at just the gaming power draw scenarios, seeing the i9 system gobbling up >100w more power than x3d (the x3d is working the GPU harder by virtue of being the better CPU), not even CPU stress test.
          Hope whatever lithography upgrade intel has lined up fares better lest AMD start misbehaving.

  • ihfree on 06/05/2024 - 12:03
    +1

    How's your warranty claim going?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join