This isn't really news - in fact, I posted about the problem being
reported back in February - but the story* is gaining more traction
recently.

Specifically, a number of agencies are now writing stories about how
the power-hungry Intel 13900K and 14900K CPUs keep crashing when
revved up to full speed. It's still not entirely clear where the blame
lies; certainly the motherboard manufacturers shoulder some of the
blame for not following Intel's specs closely enough, and OCing the
CPUs past their rated limits. But Intel also deserves some of the
shame, since a) the -K processors are specifically sold as being
overclocking tolerant, and b) the CPU is a disgustingly power-hungry
design. Plus, where did all those mobo manufacturers get the idea that
they could safely OC the CPU to those levels if not from Intel in the
first place?

Anyway, downclocking the CPU 'solves' the problem with minimal
end-user effect. Still, if somebody paid a premium to get one of those
chips, I bet they'd be pissed at having to do so. In fact, the return
rate on these particular CPUs is unusually high. I wonder why?

I, of course, have specific interest in the story since I was one of
those affected by the problem. I purposefully bought a 13900K CPU, not
because I wanted to overclock it, but I wanted that overhead as a
'safety net'. In essence, I paid the premium specifically to avoid
issues like this. With a -K processor, I thought, even if there were
power issues just like this, I wouldn't have to worry about it because
- since I was running at stock - it wouldn't affect me.

In general, I've had good luck with Intel chips anyway. I really like
AMD CPUs - they're often the better design - but there have been
compatibility issues and Intel was the 'safe' choice. Sure, it might
not have been the 'best' or 'fastest', but a 13900K was still 'fast
enough' and - I thought - was more likely to be problem free.

And, in truth, for the first six months it /was/ trouble-free. But
after a while, I started seeing odd issues. The most noticeable was
that any ZIP files created by 7Zip ended up corrupt. But there were
weird random crashes too and - ultimately - my computer stopped
booting entirely. All the standard tests indicated everything was
running normally, but Windows just wouldn't finish loading. It was
only after I drastically disabled every single overclocking option in
the BIOS (all set on by default; thanks ASUS) /and/ rate-limited the
CPU to 5400MHz (from stock 5500MHz) that I got my PC back. The only
way I can tell it's running slower is if I look at the clock-rates;
functionally it's the same performance. But my 'safe choice' no longer
seems so safe.

So I'm glad that this story is getting more attention. Hell, maybe
it'll even lead to a full recall of the CPU and I can get a new one
from Intel for free (it wouldn't be the first time; Intel replaced the
CPU for anyone who had an original Pentium CPU with the FDIV bug). I
wouldn't turn my nose up at that either!

But come time for me to build my next PC, I'm not sure that Intel will
be my 'safe' and 'problem free' choice anymore.

* read some of the articles here:
https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/cpu-instability-games-unreal-engine
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-core-i9-cpu-crashes-returns/

Am 13.04.24 um 21:06 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> In general, I've had good luck with Intel chips anyway. I really like
> AMD CPUs - they're often the better design - but there have been
> compatibility issues and Intel was the 'safe' choice. Sure, it might
> not have been the 'best' or 'fastest', but a 13900K was still 'fast
> enough' and - I thought - was more likely to be problem free.

Have been running on AMD CPUs now since the first Ryzen Gen... what
compatibility issues?
AMD really pulled it off with the ryzen design and left Intel in the dust!
(not speedwise though, but technically)

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 07:26:46 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 13.04.24 um 21:06 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> In general, I've had good luck with Intel chips anyway. I really like
>> AMD CPUs - they're often the better design - but there have been
>> compatibility issues and Intel was the 'safe' choice. Sure, it might
>> not have been the 'best' or 'fastest', but a 13900K was still 'fast
>> enough' and - I thought - was more likely to be problem free.
>
>Have been running on AMD CPUs now since the first Ryzen Gen... what
>compatibility issues?
>AMD really pulled it off with the ryzen design and left Intel in the dust!
>(not speedwise though, but technically)

There have been a number over the years, although I mostly recall them
from the days of XP and Athlon. They were rarely show-stopper bugs,
but there were a number of games where you'd need to download a patch
to run a game on AMD, or to get maximum performance. But even more
recently, AMD CPUs have needed patches (for instance, a year back
there was a patch for people running AMD CPUs on Windows 11 because
the L3 cache wasn't being properly utilized, reducing overall speed.
Cyberpunk 2077 also had issues on some AMD Ryzens on launch).

Again, that's not to say that Intel CPUs were necessarily any better
or didn't need specific patches, but it seemed to happen less often
(probably because Intel had much greater marketshare, so developers
tested more thoroughly against Intel CPUs, fixing problems before the
software was released). Rarely (probably never?) did having an AMD CPU
prevent you from running any software. But all this added an
impression - at least to me - of Intel CPUs being the more
'worry-free' option; the one that wouldn't require me to have to
fiddle with compatibility shims or extra patches just to get it
running properly on my software.

On 4/14/2024 8:03 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 07:26:46 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> Am 13.04.24 um 21:06 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>>> In general, I've had good luck with Intel chips anyway. I really like
>>> AMD CPUs - they're often the better design - but there have been
>>> compatibility issues and Intel was the 'safe' choice. Sure, it might
>>> not have been the 'best' or 'fastest', but a 13900K was still 'fast
>>> enough' and - I thought - was more likely to be problem free.
>>
>> Have been running on AMD CPUs now since the first Ryzen Gen... what
>> compatibility issues?
>> AMD really pulled it off with the ryzen design and left Intel in the dust!
>> (not speedwise though, but technically)
>
> There have been a number over the years, although I mostly recall them
> from the days of XP and Athlon. They were rarely show-stopper bugs,
> but there were a number of games where you'd need to download a patch
> to run a game on AMD, or to get maximum performance. But even more
> recently, AMD CPUs have needed patches (for instance, a year back
> there was a patch for people running AMD CPUs on Windows 11 because
> the L3 cache wasn't being properly utilized, reducing overall speed.
> Cyberpunk 2077 also had issues on some AMD Ryzens on launch).
>
> Again, that's not to say that Intel CPUs were necessarily any better
> or didn't need specific patches, but it seemed to happen less often
> (probably because Intel had much greater marketshare, so developers
> tested more thoroughly against Intel CPUs, fixing problems before the
> software was released). Rarely (probably never?) did having an AMD CPU
> prevent you from running any software. But all this added an
> impression - at least to me - of Intel CPUs being the more
> 'worry-free' option; the one that wouldn't require me to have to
> fiddle with compatibility shims or extra patches just to get it
> running properly on my software.
>
Intel being the default baseline. AMD being the Linux of CPUs. :)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

The impression is basically not feasible anymore, given that AMD Ryzen
is the baseline of the consoles.

I cannot remember any game where I had to wait for a patch.
Certain emulators were using out of date obskure intel instructions to
gain a performance boost though, which intel itself pulled in later
revisions of their processors for security reasons but even that was
optional. Newest SSE versions or lack thereof were I think an issue in
the early Ryzen versions but again optional.

Am 14.04.24 um 20:28 schrieb Werner P.:
> The impression is basically not feasible anymore, given that AMD Ryzen
> is the baseline of the consoles.
>
> I cannot remember any game where I had to wait for a patch.
> Certain emulators were using out of date obskure intel instructions to
> gain a performance boost though, which intel itself pulled in later
> revisions of their processors for security reasons but even that was
> optional. Newest SSE versions or lack thereof were I think an issue in
> the early Ryzen versions but again optional.
>
>
What sometimes happened in the early Ryzen revisions was that due to the
chiplet architecture some games were performing slightly worse due to
threads shifting between the chiplets, nothing serious though, but even
that has been fixed with some scheduler patches to my knowledge on the
other hand Intel got a ton of performance loss in the same area thanks
to security fixes they were forced to do. (not that AMD is not hit
occasionally also by security issues they have to fix)
Overall the experience is pretty much the same. The main difference is,
if you buy an AMD board you have to be somewhat nitpicky about the ram
you buy, usually board makers post compatibility lists!
Intel on the other hand in this area is plug and play to my knowledge.
So whatever you buy either choice is fine by now. I am on AMD and wont
upgrade in the near future, but I probably will stick with AMD given I
like their processors more due to the chiplet design and excellent power
consumption profilke!

Werner P. <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
>What sometimes happened in the early Ryzen revisions was that due to the
>chiplet architecture some games were performing slightly worse due to
>threads shifting between the chiplets, nothing serious though, but even
>that has been fixed with some scheduler patches to my knowledge on the
>other hand Intel got a ton of performance loss in the same area thanks
>to security fixes they were forced to do. (not that AMD is not hit
>occasionally also by security issues they have to fix)

The two chiplet problem with games is fundamental to the design and
hasn't been fixed. The two chiplet AMD Ryzen 9 59xx and 79xx CPUs all
perform significantly worse in games compared to the much cheaper Ryzen
7 single chiplet 5800X3D and 7800X3D CPUs of the same generation.

Right now that means the 7800X3D is the fastest all around gaming CPU
money can buy. Paying more for a 7950X or 7950X3D will actually get
you worse performance in many games.

As for general compatibility there's no reason to prefer an Intel CPU
over an AMD one. When I put together a new computer a year ago I went
with Intel because DDR4 memory made the entire package a better deal, but
with prices the way they are now I'd problaby go for AMD. It's important
to remember that Intel is copying AMD as much as the other way around.
Intel is just starting to get into multi-chiplet CPUs, and while its
now over two decades old, the entire 64-bit x86 architecture that modern
x86 CPUs all use was designed by AMD, not Intel.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) writes:

> The two chiplet problem with games is fundamental to the design and
> hasn't been fixed. The two chiplet AMD Ryzen 9 59xx and 79xx CPUs all
> perform significantly worse in games compared to the much cheaper Ryzen
> 7 single chiplet 5800X3D and 7800X3D CPUs of the same generation.
>
> Right now that means the 7800X3D is the fastest all around gaming CPU
> money can buy. Paying more for a 7950X or 7950X3D will actually get
> you worse performance in many games.

These seem to be a "citation needed" type of claims. What do you base
these on? With a quick look, tomshardware and anandtech don't seem to
agree.

rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) writes:
> Right now that means the 7800X3D is the fastest all around gaming CPU
> money can buy. Paying more for a 7950X or 7950X3D will actually get
> you worse performance in many games.

Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>These seem to be a "citation needed" type of claims. What do you base
>these on? With a quick look, tomshardware and anandtech don't seem to
>agree.

Should've been too hard to find this statement in Tom's Hardware's
CPU Rankings:

The $449 Ryzen 7 7800X3D is now the fastest gaming chip money
can buy.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html

In AnandTech's corresponding "Best CPUs for Gaming" article the 7800X3D is
shown tied with the 7950X3D in the one single game the article actually
provides 7800X3D gaming benchmarks for. Otherwise they don't seem to
compare the gaming performance of the two CPUs and don't actually say
which CPU they think performs better overall in games.

Tom's Hardware's "Gaming CPU Benmkarks Ranking 2024" chart makes it
clear though which they think is the fastest gaming CPU, putting the
7800X3D right at the top.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 07:26:46 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

>Have been running on AMD CPUs now since the first Ryzen Gen... what
>compatibility issues?
>AMD really pulled it off with the ryzen design and left Intel in the dust!
>(not speedwise though, but technically)

I have to stick with Intel, because in the music production world we
are often connecting expensive devices to the computer and there are
known compatibility issues between AMD processors and certain popular
products, certain audio interfaces like UAD Apollo product line comes
to mind.

In my case I never buy a PC just to run DAW software -- when I retire
a gaming system, it becomes my new music studio PC, where it gets
another 5-7 years of life (the hardware demands of DAW software are
typically lower than gaming PCs).

Most of these software and hardware vendors in the music business seem
to QA their products against Intel for their PC compatibility, so even
if AMD is just as compatible and maybe even better bang for the buck
for gaming specific needs, my purchases are based on gaming need in
the short term and music studio use in the long run and that makes AMD
a risky purchase.

rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) writes:

> rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) writes:
>> Right now that means the 7800X3D is the fastest all around gaming CPU
>> money can buy. Paying more for a 7950X or 7950X3D will actually get
>> you worse performance in many games.
>
> Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>These seem to be a "citation needed" type of claims. What do you base
>>these on? With a quick look, tomshardware and anandtech don't seem to
>>agree.
>
> Should've been too hard to find this statement in Tom's Hardware's
> CPU Rankings:

Well, to be exact, I really wanted you to support your snipped claim,
specifically this:

"The two chiplet AMD Ryzen 9 59xx and 79xx CPUs all perform
significantly worse in games compared to the much cheaper Ryzen 7 single
chiplet 5800X3D and 7800X3D CPUs of the same generation."

The performance seems slightly lower but that isn't significantly worse.

Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>Well, to be exact, I really wanted you to support your snipped claim,
>specifically this:

Because it would've been too hard for you to specifically quote the part
of my article you "really" wanted to me to provide "support" for.

>The performance seems slightly lower but that isn't significantly worse.

Any difference more than margin of error is significant. While the 2.3%
difference in 1080p performance shown in the Tom's Hardware isn't huge,
it's based on geometric mean of tests made on a number of different games.
(Unlike the Anandtech article which only provides comparitive tests of
a single game!) That means some of the games performed even worse on
the more expensive processor.

Sure, that also means some games will probably perform better on the
7950X3D, and if you're playing those games exclusively than maybe its
worth paying the extra money for. Certainly if you're a heavy user
of heavily multithreaded applications, like video editing for example,
than the 7950X3D can be a good choice. (Although the 7950X would be a
better choice if that's all you're doing.)

The problem is that 7950X3D is marketed as a "gaming processor" and
costs over 50% more than the 7800X3D. It should completely dominate the
cheaper processor in games. Even if you want to believe the difference
in performance isn't significant, and they perform the same, that still
makes the 7950X3D an embarrasment.

The bottom line here is that despite the 7950X3D being the better
processor on paper, more cache, higher boost clocks and twice the CPU
cores, that doesn't translate into better performance in games. The
penalities caused by the two chiplet design end up being a bigger factor.

So in other words, and not just my words, right now the AMD Ryzen 7
7800X3D is "the fastest gaming chip money can buy."

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //