105
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
105 points (99.1% liked)
PC Gaming
8568 readers
345 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What I'm really waiting for someone to figure out is what makes the 13th/14th gen 7/9 series processors more prone to these failures compared to the 1/4/6 series and why the 12th gen chips remain unaffected given the minor architecture changes.
Not sure if you saw Level1Tech's recent video on the topic, but he speculated that it could be the area connecting the cache to the cores, as that was apparently changed to accommodate for more cores in the 13th/14th gen parts. The change was speculated to have made the connection weaker and more prone to degradation, especially when the connection was expected to communicate with a lot of cores (hence why this occurs mainly on high core count parts)
Thanks, I watched it but I must've missed that part. If it does turn out that the 900mhz boost to the compute fabric is at fault, Wendell seems to be implying it might not be possible to solve with a microcode update. I hope that's not the case but I guess we'll find out soon enough.