Intel Publishes First Microcode Update for Raptor Lake Stability Issue, BIOSes Going Out Now
by Ryan Smith on August 9, 2024 3:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- 13th Gen Core
- Raptor Lake
- 14th Gen Core
Following Intel’s run of financial woes and Raptor Lake chip stability issues, the company could use some good news on a Friday. And this week they’re delivering just that, with the first version of the eagerly awaited microcode fix for desktop Raptor Lake processors – as well as the first detailed explanation of the underlying issue.
The new microcode release, version 0x129, is Intel’s first stab at addressing the elevated voltage issue that has seemingly been the cause of Raptor Lake processor degradation over the past year and a half. Intel has been investigating the issue all year, and after a slow start, in recent weeks has begun making more significant progress, identifying what they’re calling an “elevated operating voltage” issue in high-TDP desktop Raptor Lake (13th & 14th Generation Core) chips. Back in late July the company was targeting a mid-August release date for a microcode patch to fix (or rather, prevent) the degradation issue, and just ahead of that deadline, Intel has begun shipping the microcode to their motherboard partners.
Even with this new microcode, however, Intel is not done with the stability issue. Intel is still investigating whether it’s possible to improve the stability of already-degraded processors, and the overall tone of Intel’s announcement is very much that of a beta software fix – Intel won’t be submitting this specific microcode revision for distribution via operating system updates, for example. So even if this microcode is successful in stopping ongoing degradation, it seems that Intel hasn’t closed the book on the issue entirely, and that the company is presumably working towards a fix suitable for wider release.
Capping At 1.55v: Elevated Voltages Beget Elevated Voltages
So just what does the 0x129 microcode update do? In short, it caps the voltage of affected Raptor Lake desktop chips at a still-toasty (but in spec) 1.55v. As noted in Intel’s previous announcements, excessive voltages seem to be at the cause of the issue, so capping voltages at what Intel has determined is the proper limit should prevent future chip damage.
The company’s letter to the community also outlines, for the first time, just what is going on under the hood with degraded chips. Those chips that have already succumbed to the issue from repeated voltage spikes have deteriorated in such a way that the minimum voltage needed to operate the chip – Vmin – has increased beyond Intel’s original specifications. As a result, those chips are no longer getting enough voltage to operate.
Seasoned overclockers will no doubt find that this is a familiar story, as this is one of the ways that overclocked processors degrade over time. In those cases – as it appears to be with the Raptor Lake issue – more voltage is needed to keep a chip stable, particularly in workloads where the voltage to the chip is already sagging.
And while all signs point to this degradation being irreversible (and a lot of RMAs in Intel’s future), there is a ray of hope. If Intel’s analysis is correct that degraded Raptor Lake chips can still operate properly with a higher Vmin voltage, then there is the possibility of saving at least some of these chips, and bringing them back to stability.
This “Vmin shift,” as Intel is calling it, is the company’s next investigative target. According to the company’s letter, they are aiming to provide updates by the “end of August.”
In the meantime, Intel’s eager motherboard partners have already begun releasing BIOSes with the new microcode, with ASUS and MSI even jumping the gun and sending out BIOSes before Intel had a chance to properly announce the microcode. Both vendors are releasing these as beta BIOSes, reflecting the general early nature of the microcode fix itself. And while we expect most users will want to get this microcode in place ASAP to mitigate further damage on affected chips, it would be prudent to treat these beta BIOSes as just that.
Along those lines, as noted earlier, Intel is only distributing the 0x129 microcode via BIOS updates at this time. This microcode will not be coming to other systems via operating system updates. At this point we still expect distribution via OS updates to be the end game for this fix, but for now, Intel isn’t providing a timeline or other guidance for when that might happen. So for PC enthusiasts, at least, a BIOS update is the only way to get it for now.
Performance Impact: Generally Nil – But Not Always
Finally, Intel’s message also provides a bit of guidance on the performance impact of the new microcode, based on their internal testing. Previously the company has indicated that they expected no significant performance impact, and based on their expanded testing, by and large this remains the case. However, there are going to be some workloads that suffer from performance regressions as a result.
So far, Intel has found a couple of workloads where they are seeing regressions. This includes PugetBench GPU Effects Score and, on the gaming side of matters, Hitman 3: Dartmoor. Otherwise, virtually everything else Intel has tested, including common benchmarks like Cinebench, and major games, are not showing performance regressions. So the overall outcome of the fix is not quite a spotless recovery, but it’s also not leading to widespread performance losses, either.
As for AnandTech, we’ll be digging into this on our own benchmark suite as time allows. We have one more CPU launch coming up next week, so there’s no shortage of work to be done in the next few days. (Sorry, Gavin!)
Intel’s Full Statement
For all Intel Core 13th/14th Gen desktop processor users: This patch is being distributed via BIOS update and will not be available through operating system updates. Intel is working with its partners to ensure timely validation and rollout of the BIOS update for systems currently in service.
Instability Analysis Update – Microcode Background and Performance Implications
In addition to extended warranty coverage, Intel has released three mitigations related to the instability issue – commonly experienced as consistent application crashes and repeated hangs – to help stabilize customer systems with Intel Core 13th and 14th gen desktop processors:
- Intel default settings to avoid elevated power delivery impact to the processor (May 2024)
- Microcode 0x125 to fix the eTVB issue in i9 processors (June 2024)
- Microcode 0x129 to address elevated voltages (August 2024)
The latest microcode update (0x129) will limit voltage requests above 1.55V as a preventative mitigation for processors not experiencing instability symptoms. This latest microcode update will primarily improve operating conditions for K/KF/KS processors. Intel is also confirming, based on extensive validation, all future products will not be affected by this issue.
Intel is continuing to investigate mitigations for scenarios that can result in Vmin shift on potentially impacted Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors. Intel will provide updates by end of August.
Intel’s internal testing – utilizing Intel Default Settings - indicates performance impact is within run-to-run variation (eg. 3DMark: Timespy, WebXPRT 4, Cinebench R24, Blender 4.2.0) with a few sub-tests showing moderate impacts (WebXPRT Online Homework; PugetBench GPU Effects Score). For gaming workloads tested, performance has also been within run-to-run variation (eg. Cyberpunk 2077, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Total War: Warhammer III – Mirrors of Madness) with one exception showing slightly more impact (Hitman 3: Dartmoor). However, system performance is dependent on configuration and several other factors.
For unlocked Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors, this latest microcode update (0x129) will not prevent users from overclocking if they so choose. Users can disable the eTVB setting in their BIOS if they wish to push above the 1.55V threshold. As always, Intel recommends users proceed with caution when overclocking their desktop processors, as overclocking may void their warranty and/or affect system health. As a general best practice, Intel recommends customers with Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors utilize the Intel Default Settings.
In light of the recently announced extended warranty program, Intel is reaffirming its confidence in its products and is committed to making sure all customers who have or are currently experiencing instability symptoms on their 13th and/or 14th Gen desktop processors are supported in the exchange process. Users experiencing consistent instability symptoms should reach out to their system manufacturer (OEM/System Integrator purchase), Intel Customer Support (boxed processor), or place of purchase (tray processor) further assistance.
-Intel Community Post
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
View All Comments
Khanan - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
I bet that was also the same issue as here, not the node but excessive voltage and power which Pentium 4 is also infamous for. How people forget this fact and blame some node instead is beyond me.GeoffreyA - Monday, August 12, 2024 - link
I always thought it was an issue with the node, but it could have been the voltage. However, overclockers would manually set the latter and there wasn't turbo back then, so I doubt it was wrong automatic voltage.TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, August 21, 2024 - link
It's not as simple as the node nor voltage, as the 12th gens dont have issues.Khanan - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
The intel 10nm node isn't the issue, alone extreme voltages / power are, it seems it ran OVER 1.55 V and they want to cap it now at "just" 1.55 which is still extreme - and the comparison to 5800X3D is nonsense, it runs at 1.4 (which is way less) only a low amount of time and not consistently like Intel CPUs do at even higher voltages - hence why they destroyed themselves.I bet AMD could produce a Ryzen CPU on 10nm Intel and it would be 100% fine, just like Alder Lake was. Never blame the node here, just the other guys who messed it up.
Silver5urfer - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
If you read Intel datasheets, they put 1.7V as Max voltage. Not that you can run that high 24.7, and Intel CML, RKL bins if you see most of them below 80SP need 1.5V for 5.3GHz that's VID factory from Intel. And only golden chips past 100SP can get that at 1.3V. Basically anyone running their 10th gen i9 10900K at 5.3GHz need 1.4-1.5V and those are over 95% of the entire 14nm++ CPU yields on a Z490/Z590 board, LGA1200.RKL was sabotaged on purpose by Intel due to backport from 10nm to 14nm++, Arch was not scaling on 14nm++ plus it was tremendous heat density 300W on RKL cannot be cooled on AIO even, and performance dropped due to 2C4T defecit due to regression and HT/SMT performance tanked on top of IMC, still that chip could take over 1.4-1.5V same like CML and did not die.
I do not know much on Alder Lake but they were not running at 5.5GHz+ and the RING bus does not involve higher E cores. I compared the node because TSMC 7N was equal to Intel 10nm / Intel 7, in terms of density and infact intel has higher density, that's per Ian's Anandtech article. So Intel pushed them hard on Raptor Lake with over 5.8GHz and to 6GHz on top of extra Ring OC beyond 5GHz (which was throwing WHEA on CML and RKL was capped) and shoved E cores onto Ringbus and ran at same higher voltage like CML and RKL same LLC overshoot to 1.5V+ , the node is at fault because it cannot handle the architecture specific design, 14nmm did not exhibit such issues nor 22nm of Intel. Only 10nm did. Intel's XEON Sapphire Rapids also was a huge dud because it had many steppings and having constant issues, the Intel's Supercomputer also a dead end because Pointe Vecchio + Sapphire Rapids is having issues all over. Read it online.. "Intel-powered Aurora supercomputer fails to dethrone AMD-powered Frontier on Top500 list, again — claims spot as fastest AI supercomputer with HPL-MxP benchmark instead"
AMD's 5800X3D always runs at higher voltages at 1.4V you can check any 5800X3D Cinebench runs. It has low boost ceiling (Sub 5GHz) unlike Zen 4 which can shoot to 5.8GHz and be rock stable. Plus as I mentioned Zen 4 at 5.8GHz runs at 1.2-1.3V, out of the box max boost with very less OC headroom.
powerarmour - Monday, August 12, 2024 - link
7800X3D only runs at 1.1v even.Khanan - Monday, August 12, 2024 - link
You’re kinda contradicting yourself. Let me explain:- higher (or better or denser nodes) always sustain a bit less voltage, that’s well known, the better the node the “smaller”, the less voltage it can take.
- So Alder Lake was fine, RPL wasn’t because of higher voltage/power, confirming my point, not yours. You said this yourself, but it’s not making your point.
- it’s absolutely normal a node can only take so much and not even higher voltage, again, I will not blame the node here as you do, the architecture is too bad, not performant enough that’s why Intel wants extreme clocks and thus extreme voltages. All point to an architecture and performance deficit and competitive problems not the node.
- 10nm was a train wreck for a long time but then finally matured into a good node - that just as an aside.
Silver5urfer - Tuesday, August 13, 2024 - link
Intel 4 (no high performance silicon exists) is equivalent to TSMC 5N, which is what Zen 4 is made on, and runs at 1.2-1.3V at 5.8GHz or OCed on few cores. Meanwhile Intel 10nm / Intel 7 is equivalent to TSMC 7N. And Zen 3 can run at 1.4V (5800X3D) although clock limited no degradation. Now RPL is made on this node not Intel 4, which cannot sustain 1.4V, that 1.55V limit is not going to save degradation, it will slowly occur instead of rapid onset.Intel 22nm and 14nm++ ran at 1.4V and even 1.5V for poor SP processors at BIOS defaults that ASUS crams into them, and no dying of CPUs nor weird Oodle compression problems or instability in general, many still run all gens of processors to date.
All this says Intel node is at fault for not handling higher voltage for RPL silicon.. Also SPR XEON facing issues further cements that Node is not great, matter of fact Intel does not use their 10nm+ in their future lineup nor any customers exist for Intel which fab high performance parts. Intel ARL is made on Intel 4 and TSMC silicon.
Khanan - Tuesday, August 13, 2024 - link
That is left to be seen after the fix, because the micro code was buggy we have no data on this. The only data with lower / proper voltage was with Alder Lake and ADL had no significant problems.Again, more simpler nodes that have bigger area will suffer higher voltages, go back and check really old nodes you will see that the voltages are extremely high there compared to now and not possible with nodes used since over 10 years now.
You have no data on this, like i already explained now (multiple times I guess).
>further cements that Node is not great
Not possible to know without testing non-Intel architectures on it, as ADL counters your point, or basically all Intel arches that ran properly. It's not the node, my friend, it's the arch.
>matter of fact Intel does not use their 10nm+ in their future lineup
Of course not, because it is outdated, this isn't a point for you to make at all, it's nonsense, sorry to be blunt. AMD doesn't use 7nm TSMC either anymore, you wanna make the same point there now as well? Only used for old stuff like Zen 3.
>nor any customers exist for Intel which fab high performance parts.
1) because Intel didn't allow them to do so (especially not AMD)
2) because TSMC is better, not because Intel 10nm is bad. Big difference. This means Apple will use TSMC, not Intel. Because TSMC is better, not because Intel node is "bad".
>Intel ARL is made on Intel 4 and TSMC silicon.
Doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, but we will see if Intel 4 is a good node or not, so far we have 0 data on this (desktop PC, which again will stress the CPU and node more than anything else).
Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
The famous overclocker 'the Stilt' claimed that the lower the leakage of a piece of silicon, the higher the voltage required. He said lower leakage is always superior except when doing extreme overclocking with LN2.His statements contradict 99% of the comments made by others, which involve claiming that lower voltage = golden chip. He said lower voltage chips require more current which leads to more power usage and heat.
For instance, he said that AMD's 9000-series Piledriver parts were originally so out of spec that they would have been sent to the crusher. They needed less voltage for high clocks but leaked so much that they required more current and thus generated more waste heat.