Game developer says Intel should recall its defective, crash-prone CPUs

Godzilla hasn't quite gotten the message.

At this point every buyer needs to buy AMD CPUs, even the fanbois.

Then maybe we will see some respect to the End Customer whom Intel have been disrespecting since haswell times.

I'm waiting for someone to start a lawsuit at this point, 5 months and no solution or explanation and these CPUs are degrading like crazy.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, I feel like there will be a class action after another year.

It's really bad that this problem occurred, but it's even worse when we consider that after nearly half a year, Intel still has not managed to fix it.

Just a game developer? Is it really the expertise level we want to trust?
Now from a personal perspective, when I had 9600k+win10 My PC went on for years without blue screen.
I am getting one at least once a month with 13700k+ win11.
It is a solid fact 13th and 14th generations came with a variety of issues.
But I am not ready to accept that this is a widespread issue disrupting the work and gaming of millions of intel users.

MSIGamer said:

I'm waiting for someone to start a lawsuit at this point, 5 months and no solution or explanation and these CPUs are degrading like crazy.

Click to expand...

That thing when Intel had to lower the speed of their top CPUs to make them more stable, that is indeed worthy of a class lawsuit. Give every person who purchased these CPUs 10-15% of the price back. Or Give 30% off any Intel product which I might take myself..

Is there a point where this may not be fixable short of total replacement of different chip? I guess a better question is or would be, does the next chip Intel is about to release free from these same errors, and if so, why not ramp up and push those chips forward now (maybe as direct RMA replacement)? For now, the errors have appeared in games, at what point does a flawed chip become a concern for business-critical systems as a precaution?

n3o127 said:

Is there a point where this may not be fixable short of total replacement of different chip? I guess a better question is or would be, does the next chip Intel is about to release free from these same errors, and if so, why not ramp up and push those chips forward now (maybe as direct RMA replacement)? For now, the errors have appeared in games, at what point does a flawed chip become a concern for business-critical systems as a precaution?

Click to expand...

Intel's "next chip" requires new motherboard. Not solution for current systems. Assuming motherboard is kept.

It's already problem on server systems too.

I bought an AMD CPU on a rig about 20 years ago...back when AMD sucked ***. Fried my entire mobo. I've never bought AMD cpu since.

However, I am seriously considering it for my next build....

Funny how most reviewers sung the praises of 13th and 14th gen CPU's on launch day, casually ignoring that in almost every possible way they are worse than AMD's offerings.

I can hear the fanboys now: "But it's the fastest CPU for productivity". Great, so how's that 280-300W TDP working out for you when it's at best 10% faster than Ryzen 9 7950X(or 3D) that's sipping a mere 120-150W and isn't running at a temperature even The Sun would raise an eyebrow against?

Or when for just £340 if gaming if your focus, Ryzen 7 7800X3D uses around 85-90W and beats the entire Intel stack and even most of AMD's own stack hands down?

Yet they still outsell AMD and hold significant market share. I don't get it - Ignore brand loyalty on either side, but why do people pay more for something objectively worse out of the two CPU makers?

themastergoose said:

Funny how most reviewers sung the praises of 13th and 14th gen CPU's on launch day, casually ignoring that in almost every possible way they are worse than AMD's offerings.

I can hear the fanboys now: "But it's the fastest CPU for productivity". Great, so how's that 280-300W TDP working out for you when it's at best 10% faster than Ryzen 9 7950X(or 3D) that's sipping a mere 120-150W and isn't running at a temperature even The Sun would raise an eyebrow against?

Or when for just £340 if gaming if your focus, Ryzen 7 7800X3D uses around 85-90W and beats the entire Intel stack and even most of AMD's own stack hands down?

Yet they still outsell AMD and hold significant market share. I don't get it - Ignore brand loyalty on either side, but why do people pay more for something objectively worse out of the two CPU makers?

Click to expand...

When you have fastest CPU, power consumption doesn't matter. Even if AMD has faster CPU, power consumption still doesn't matter because IntelWatts are anyway less than AMDWatts.

And don't forget revolutionary, never seen before, groundbreaking, future proof, Hybrid architecture!

At least Techspot was not really impressed with 13900K or 14900K. Props for that

HardReset said:

When you have fastest CPU, power consumption doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

HardReset said:

When you have fastest CPU, power consumption doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

Like @Achaios said... Wrong. More power equals more heat and cooling Intel's recent line of chips has been difficult at best. Some people even say that a 360mm radiator is barely enough to cool it.

I have a 7700X in my system right now and d*mn did I dodge a bullet.

The 11th generation was the reason why I changed to amd x3d (am4), even though I have a 11400 on a secondary machine running just fine. I was checking the 11900k(f) for my z490 board at the time as a possible upgrade from a 10700kf, due to pci-e 4 support and other things. Yet, not only it was too expensive, but it would also require a somewhat serious water cooling block in order to be effective (ran too hot). Not to mention that intel had downgraded the 10 cores of the 10900k to just 8 because this compromise would allow adapting a new architecture (rocket lake) to an ancient manufacturing process.

The 12th generation was last "remarkable" cpu generation in my opinion, because it supported both ddr4 and ddr5 and maybe did not push the technology too close to the limit, unlike recent generations. Of course I am referring only to the top of the line models such as 1x900k(...). I am still to be convinced that the big/little core structure is a good concept vs. amd's uniform design. Who do they think they are, arm?

But let's wait and see what the future brings.

I honestly don't understand why anyone still buys Intel.

For people who pay a premium, BSOD for flakey reasons is FN annoying. You just want it to work, plus you run error checks , memory tests of a USB stick, you look at logs you may not even understand . If you do get the message on the screen, you look it up , 7 answers given from simple scannow with along with checking C drive you have already done , update drivers, roll back drivers etc blah blah
Then you update Bios , undervolt blah blah and still get random crashes on your $3000 PC , while granny on some cheap PC is having no issues.

As for buying Intel vs AMD see if varies from country to country, Seems more obstinate fanbois in The USA not willing to change than say Germany.
Plus if you did buy this CPU for productivity , then BSOD is even more annoying, 3 hours of crunching lost, not sure if next 5 hours of crunching will work or crash .

Also if a gamer and busy life , setup game in cop with friend Sunday night and crash your team loses

Achaios said:

Wrong.

Click to expand...

You do realise HardReset’s post was meant in humour, right…? ;-)

Is this issue affecting only enthusiast/gamer consumer SKUs (niche segment), or does it also include the current server chips for enterprise and data center?

If the former case, Intel faces temporary embarrassment and a potential one-time cash hit to fix or replace those chips.

But if it's the latter, and this tarnishes Intel's reputation as the safest (or maybe for some holdouts, the only safe) bet in that sector, that's a potential fundamental change in Intel's market position - serious stuff.

HardReset said:

When you have fastest CPU, power consumption doesn't matter. Even if AMD has faster CPU, power consumption still doesn't matter because IntelWatts are anyway less than AMDWatts.

And don't forget revolutionary, never seen before, groundbreaking, future proof, Hybrid architecture!

At least Techspot was not really impressed with 13900K or 14900K. Props for that

Click to expand...

I find all this quite amusing. Nobody had to rush out and buy these turds. But yeah, the 13 & 14xxx have more cores, are (allegedly) faster, and cost twice as much, ATM. Everybody here knew full well that the 14900s were barely a facelift on the 13900s. Gamers Nexus as well as Techspot told you as much. Yet here we are, raining tears of woe and misery into our over caffeinated energy drinks.

As a matter of fact, Newegg has/had the i9-12900 on sale for somewhere in the vicinity of $270.00..! I really haven't heard any complaints about the 12xxx line. Well, if they're half price, they must be stuck with excess inventory. Hm? So why buy the new line? Is this a case of "performance anxiety", or the unrequited desire to kill or be killed? (In fantasy land, of course).

FaTaL said:

I bought an AMD CPU on a rig about 20 years ago...back when AMD sucked ***. Fried my entire mobo. I've never bought AMD cpu since.

However, I am seriously considering it for my next build....

Click to expand...

tbh 20 years ago amd didn't suck. they had the lead in mainstream and high end cpus. I'm not sure which era you are talking about. around 2004, athlon 3500 and fx cpu's were clear favorites.

themastergoose said:

Yet they still outsell AMD and hold significant market share. I don't get it - Ignore brand loyalty on either side, but why do people pay more for something objectively worse out of the two CPU makers?

Click to expand...

It’s easy to forget, given the nature of this website, but, most of the market is prebuilt, not prosumer. Intel, if nothing else, has better marketing and I would argue a better user experience (intel laptops having higher build quality, faster ports, nicer screens, etc). That defecit has closed in recent years but is undeniably still there.


Kind of like how people still buy crappy American cars when Japanese cars are (or at least were!) so much more reliable…

opckieran said:

It’s easy to forget, given the nature of this website, but, most of the market is prebuilt, not prosumer. Intel, if nothing else, has better marketing and I would argue a better user experience (intel laptops having higher build quality, faster ports, nicer screens, etc). That defecit has closed in recent years but is undeniably still there.


Kind of like how people still buy crappy American cars when Japanese cars are (or at least were!) so much more reliable…

Click to expand...

Wasn't intel doing dodgy deals to keep AMD laptops gimped?