• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion Intel's past, present and future

Page 27 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
511 said:
No one knows actually what is the real issue beside Intel cause we just had another microcode looks like broken design for P cores btw are E cores affected as well with this issue did someone has to tone down E core clocks?
Click to expand...
I am not an IEEE guy, and I am not certain how to answer that. You can follow the links in this article from last month, published by our sister site, and perhaps get the answer you are looking for - https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/pr...-gen-raptor-lake-cpus/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
 
Io Magnesso said:
Well, I understand that Intel has neglected to disclose information.
However, when the oxidation problem of the manufacturing process was announced, the Raptor problem I was confused because it was the same as the information disclosure of
I understand that the root cause of Raptor Lake's 13/14 generation problem is different from the oxidation problem.
Click to expand...
Read the the list of mitigations and microcode updates. Then you tell me, do you think there is one root cause of failures?
 
Io Magnesso said:
New microcode released last monthI don't know why it was released
Click to expand...
"The new microcode fix—dubbed 0x12F and not to be confused with the 0x125, 0x129 and 0x12B patches that came before it—"further improves system conditions that can potentially contribute to Vmin Shift Instability on Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop-powered systems."
Io Magnesso said:
Maybe it's just a reflection of feedback from microcode dealing with the root cause
Click to expand...
LOL I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. If by feedback you mean continued reports of degradation and failures then all signs point to yes.
 
DAPUNISHER said:
Read the the list of mitigations and microcode updates. Then you tell me, do you think there is one root cause of failures?
Click to expand...
You can see the 4 scenarios that cause a Vmin shift I understand that
However, I understand that the root cause is due to the clock tree circuit in the IA core. Same for all scenarios
 
Io Magnesso said:
I'm sorry that I acted like an Intel believer.
I apologize again
Click to expand...
No, you are good, and have nothing to apologize for. You can like anything you like. And this is an Intel thread so being pro Intel in here is more than OK. I only get involved to make certain misinformation does not get passed along as correct information.
 
DAPUNISHER said:
No, you are good, and have nothing to apologize for. You can like anything you like. And this is an Intel thread so being pro Intel in here is more than OK. I only get involved to make certain misinformation does not get passed along as correct information.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much Thank you from the bottom of my heart
It's very confusing Does the Raptor Lake degradation problem come from the oxidation problem of Intel 7? Or maybe it's a different issue for each?
Until now, I thought that these issues had nothing to do with each other and were independent.
If there is actually a relationship, it is not possible to explain the failure of Raptor Lake (Refresh)-S, which is the production lot since the oxidation problem was fixed.
 
Last edited:
DAPUNISHER said:
I am not an IEEE guy, and I am not certain how to answer that. You can follow the links in this article from last month, published by our sister site, and perhaps get the answer you are looking for - https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/pr...-gen-raptor-lake-cpus/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Click to expand...
After searching a bit online looks like E core and P core are different clock domains so looks like they don't share this issue looks like someone messed the P core implementation in RPL from my searching online. I don't have proof to back it up though just a speculation.
 
Io Magnesso said:
Thank you very much Thank you from the bottom of my heart
It's very confusing Does the Raptor Lake degradation problem come from the oxidation problem of Intel 7? Or maybe it's a different issue for each?
Until now, I thought that these issues had nothing to do with each other and were independent.
If there is actually a relationship, it is not possible to explain the failure of Raptor Lake (Refresh)-S, which is the production lot since the oxidation problem was fixed.
Click to expand...
At least the Intel 7 (Enhanced) processor produced after 2024 seems to have fixed the oxidation problem of the via.
Laptop processors are said to have no problems
At least I've never heard of a laptop encountering a 13/14 generation problem.
And it seems that control problems can be avoided by applying a microcode patch to the New Raptor Lake.
This is what I understand at the moment
It's difficult, isn't it... this
 
Io Magnesso said:
Only Intel knows the truth
Click to expand...
Not to beat a dead horse, but Intel could have released lot numbers for all CPUs affected by the oxidation issue and chose not to do so. We'll never know exactly how many CPUs were affected. Pretty embarassing. At least they seem to have ironed out the issue since only Intel 7 products were affected.

Not sure how prospective foundry customers would really feel about that. They'll want to know how Intel will prioritize foundry customer orders vs. internal orders.
 
Last edited:
DrMrLordX said:
Not to beat a dead horse, but Intel could have released lot numbers for all CPUs affected by the oxidation issue and chose not to do so. We'll never know exactly how many CPUs were affected. Pretty embarassing. At least they seem to have ironed out the issue since only Intel 7 products were affected.
Click to expand...
Sure, it would have been better to publish the affected lots.
Since the release date has only been one year since the release from Raptor, you can receive the warranty period. Maybe there was no need to take special measures It's my opinion
I wouldn't say it's good…
 
Io Magnesso said:
Sure, it would have been better to publish the affected lots.
Since the release date has only been one year since the release from Raptor, you can receive the warranty period. Maybe there was no need to take special measures It's my opinion
I wouldn't say it's good…
Click to expand...

If I was a potentiel foundry customer, I'd be scared. If Intel can't acknowledge such problem for their own use, I would not trust them with my products.
 
Thibsie said:
If I was a potentiel foundry customer, I'd be scared. If Intel can't acknowledge such problem for their own use, I would not trust them with my products.
Click to expand...
It's good to be anxious
To be honest, I can understand from the bottom of my heart that I can't trust people
It's good to feel that you can't trust
 
Thibsie said:
If I was a potentiel foundry customer, I'd be scared. If Intel can't acknowledge such problem for their own use, I would not trust them with my products.
Click to expand...
Do you think Intel didn't tell intel themselves 🤣. I am sure they must have know what were the affected lots better way would be to check with OEMs what info did they got.
 
511 said:
Yeah the foundry under BK/Swan were similar in rotten culture they kept saying 10nm is fine we all know how fine turned out to be.
Click to expand...
At least we didn't provide it to external customers until Intel 7...
It's definitely different from Intel 4(3) or later, because we'll provide it to our customers.
I can't tell lies At least I think Intel himself is aware of it.
 
Re: Intel Foundry not winning customers besides Intel itself —

I have read the argument that IP developers (e.g. CPU IP developers) are not keen on showing their IP to a foundry which is owned by another IP developer. To myself as a member of the great unwashed masses, this sounds plausible. But is it really?
 
Well Intel 3 is Industry Standard EDA Compatible whoever wants to use it besides Intel ofc.
The biggest attraction for Intel process are ironically UMC 12/Intel 16 🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top