[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Might NOT be a Debian problem



Hi,

I've additional, not so good information.

Klaus Singvogel wrote:
> Van Snyder wrote:
> > I upgraded my computer with a new MSI Z90 board, Intel I9-14900K, 32
> > GB, 1 TB NVME drive.
> 
> Intel CPUs are known to exhibit issues if they draw more power than specified, especially when overclocked or under heavy load.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/17wcr1p/comment/k9gsrg6/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/GamersNexus/comments/1f40n9k/my_second_14900k_is_showing_instability_despite
> https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/i9-14900k-instability-and-crashes.3882378

While reading the Wikipedia article about Intel's 14th-generation processors, I came across an interessing section:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_Lake#Instability_and_degradation_issue

It led me to a related article on Tom's Hardware:

	[...]

	The bug causes irreversible degradation of the impacted processors.
	We're told that the microcode patch will not repair processors
	already experiencing crashes, but it is expected to prevent issues
	on processors that aren't currently impacted by the issue. For now,
	it is unclear if CPUs exposed to excessive voltage have suffered
	from invisible degradation or damage that hasn't resulted in
	crashes yet but could lead to errors or crashes in the future.

	Intel advises all customers having issues to seek help from its
	customer support. Because the microcode update will not repair
	impacted processors, the company will continue to replace them.
	Intel has pledged to grant RMAs to all impacted customers.

Reference:
	https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-finally-announces-a-solution-for-cpu-crashing-errors-claims-elevated-voltages-are-the-root-cause-fix-coming-by-mid-august

→ But first of all, I would make sure whether your system is actually affected by this CPU degradation issue.

Best regards,
	Klaus.
-- 
Klaus Singvogel
GnuPG-Key-ID: 1024R/5068792D  1994-06-27


Reply to: