Jump to content
  • Intel is offering extended warranties for crashing 13th- and 14th-gen desktop CPUs


    Karlston

    • 4 comments
    • 352 views
    • 3 minutes
     Share


    • 4 comments
    • 352 views
    • 3 minutes

    Intel's microcode fix won't help CPUs that are already damaged.

    Intel will be releasing a microcode update to prevent further damage to crashing 13th- and 14th-generation desktop processors sometime this month if it can stick to its previously announced schedule. This fix should be available via BIOS updates from PC and motherboard makers and from Microsoft as a Windows update. But it will take time for those updates to roll out to users, and Intel has said that processors that are already exhibiting crashes have been permanently damaged and won't be fixed by the microcode update.

     

    In an effort to provide peace of mind to buyers and cover anyone whose CPU is subtly damaged but not showing explicit signs of instability, Intel is extending the warranty on all affected 13th- and 14th-generation CPUs by an additional two years, Tom's Hardware reports. This raises the warranty on a new boxed Intel CPU from three years to five. For processors that came installed in pre-built PCs, Intel says users should reach out to their PC's manufacturer for support instead.

     

    Though owners of high-end chips like the Core i9-13900K and Core i9-14900K were the most frequently affected by the crashing issue, Intel says that any 13th- or 14th-generation desktop CPU with a base power of 65 W or higher could ultimately be affected. This means that even slower, more budget-oriented chips like the Core i5-13400 could end up having problems.

     

    According to Intel, the root cause of the issue was "a microcode algorithm resulting in incorrect voltage requests to the processor," a bug that caused motherboards to supply too much power to a CPU. This resulted in damage to the silicon over time, leading to crashing and instability. The problem was also exacerbated by enthusiast motherboards that didn't stick to Intel's recommended default power and performance settings.

     

    Intel says it is "investigating options to easily identify affected processors" to help give users peace of mind, and it will have more to share on both these testing options and the details of the extended warranty "in the coming days." Anyone experiencing problems should reach out to Intel or their PC's manufacturer, depending on whether they bought a separate CPU or a complete system.

     

    Source

     

    Hope you enjoyed this news post.

    Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every single day for many years.

    2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of July): 3,313 news posts


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    The only recent Intel chip I have is an i7-13700T in an HP mini; I'm hoping that isn't affected.

     

    However... under UK consumer law, goods have to legally be fit for purpose at sale (i.e. meet all the claims that were made for them in advertising and not be 'faulty'). If not, the purchaser has a right of refund at any time; not limited by any warranty period. Such a now well-documented design fault would certainly make them not fit for purpose and be a no-brainer to argue a case for if there was any failure. If the seller won't play ball (and it is the seller who has to legally in the UK, not the manufacturer) then if it was bought on CC, the CC company is equally liable to comply with the law and provide the refund.*

     

    I had this issue with a GPU some years back which was sold as having hardware that it turned out it did not. I didn't find out until later, well after the warranty expired. The seller wouldn't reply to emails about it so I contacted the CC company and had a refund within a month.

     

    Of course, sometimes getting companies to comply with the law isn't so easy regardless of it being obvious, and I think business transactions don't have the same legal protection.

     

    *The only catch with that CC law is if a third-party transaction processor was used as a 'middle-man'. Like paypal or apple pay, or any CC clearing processor. They are not CC companies so the liability law doesn't apply to them, but using them breaks the direct link to the CC company so they are no longer liable either. It's a loophole in the consumer protection law that has been allowed to persist for decades... possible one left in there deliberately for just that purpose (or am I being overly suspicious of wealthy politicians with ties to billionaires and their companies making laws?)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...