Intel Releases Critical Microcode Fix for 13th and 14th Gen CPU Voltage Issues 18
Intel has released microcode update 0x12B for its 13th and 14th generation Core processors, addressing persistent stability issues stemming from voltage irregularities. The update targets a specific clock tree circuit within the CPU's IA core that was causing elevated voltage requests during idle and light workloads.
The company identified four key factors contributing to voltage instability: motherboards exceeding Intel's power specifications, an Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost algorithm allowing sustained high performance at elevated temperatures, frequent high voltage requests from the processor, and problematic microcode demanding elevated core voltages during low-activity periods. While previous update 0x129 addressed some concerns, the new 0x12B update aims to resolve the root cause of the "Vmin shift" problem, where voltage spikes lead to increased power requirements and potential degradation over time. Intel is working with motherboard manufacturers to roll out BIOS updates incorporating the new microcode.
The company identified four key factors contributing to voltage instability: motherboards exceeding Intel's power specifications, an Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost algorithm allowing sustained high performance at elevated temperatures, frequent high voltage requests from the processor, and problematic microcode demanding elevated core voltages during low-activity periods. While previous update 0x129 addressed some concerns, the new 0x12B update aims to resolve the root cause of the "Vmin shift" problem, where voltage spikes lead to increased power requirements and potential degradation over time. Intel is working with motherboard manufacturers to roll out BIOS updates incorporating the new microcode.
Ah, the suicidal CPUs.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of a certain airplane maker that has forgotten how to install doors, or a certain security software maker that cannot design or test code for shit and likes to put systems into an endless crash-reboot-cycle.
We clearly have a wave of cretinization in tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and just now MS AV has crashed on a signature update. What _are_ these people doing with all their money? Because it sure as hell is not good engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because AMD is beating them and their tech is the usual Intel crap - crank up the power and clock speeds until just before it breaks, rather than make something more elegant.
Like the Pentium 4, they took it too far and rushed to get parts out.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Arrogance, incompetence and a deep conviction that users have to buy their crap anyways.
Important part left out (Score:2)
1. Will this fix the crashes in games other than those mentioned as "tested"?
2. Will this fix processors that have become chronically unstable, or are they done for and have to be RMA'd?
Re: (Score:3)
Should you install it, or wait for your CPU to break and get a new one that hasn't been damaged?
Even if your CPU is stable, it's been aged by this flaw.
I'd also be checking benchmarks to see how much of a downgrade this is.
Re:Important part left out (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily and no
Re: (Score:2)
Fix "crashes" in games? But why?
Game "crashes" are a feature, not a bug.
Intel CPU tester tool. (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.intel.com/content/... [intel.com]
If all is good, you get a nice green box with the word pass in all caps. It only took a couple of minutes to run.
Re: (Score:2)
I can right the same tool in Qbasic. Show splash screen - Provide test button to click - PRINT "Testing ..." - SLEEP 180 - LINE (100, 100) - (200, 200), GREEN, BF - PRINT "PASS". There ya go, no need to worry any longer, your CPU is good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
write - not right, LOL my debugger must be pooched..
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link!
No Linux version? Blah.
Re: (Score:2)
This tool was last updated in January, so it doesn't specifically test for this issue, right? Just a normal stress tester, is there any way to confirm that it actually triggers a crash in affected CPUs?
Been a while since I was big into overclocking, but I seem to remember I could overclock a system to instability, back it off a ways and do prime95 stress tests and benchmark stress tests and pass, but the system would still be randomly unstable.
Re: (Score:2)
depends on how you 'backed off' your oc and if you returned it to stock or stayed oc'd.
most normal instability is caused by the voltage dropping too low. the voltage being too high causes heat throttling (unless you get stupid). you generally don't cause perm damage. so if stress tests like noted pass, and you ran them for many hours, you should be safe. but like a 10 min test... sure, that may slip by.
oc'ing is automatic these days in all cpu's. it's called boost clocks. there's really no need t
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't. We tried it on a definitely boned CPU (we had a dual boot to Windows) and it passed for many many many cycles, but it explodes in spectacular fashion doing actual work (ffmpeg, in this case). I've since backed off the max clocks on that CPU *a lot* but looks like it might be continuing to degrade. We'll definitely take the replacements for all our ruined or potentially-ruined CPUs.
It was trivial to damage these things: we did it within 24 hours of continuous ffmpeg use: started seeing MCEs (M
Re: (Score:2)
If all is good, you get a nice green box with the word pass in all caps. It only took a couple of minutes to run.
Not all stress testing tools are equal. This one here will not identify if your Intel CPU is boned. For those concerned you will see the result in your actual workloads. Don't let a tool gaslight you if your computer is unstable.
How many more patches will there be (Score:2)