With problems in intel's 13 and 14th gen, is it wise to get them now?

RJARRRPCGP said:

Were you getting what looked like a RAM subsystem failure, such as "PAGE_FAULT_IN_NON_PAGED_AREA", "BAD_POOL_HEADER" and/or "MEMORY_MANAGEMENT" stop error codes?

Click to expand...

No. It was a CPU with immediate damage. Probably caused by damaged LGA1700 pins. (I'm morally certain that I didn't do that, but was unable to prove it.)

bobkn said:

I wonder how many believe that buying an Intel CPU is "to be on the safe side"? I've used both Intel and AMD CPUs over many years. I haven't had compatibility or reliability issues with either. I thought that the Athlon 64 X2 was the best choice back when Intel was struggling with their Pentium 4, nearly 20 years ago. The Core series put Intel back in the running. My current primary system is AMD mainly because I wished to try an HEDT (high end desktop) system, which Intel hasn't offered since Gen10. (Please don't counter with Xeon.)

Click to expand...

I've moved back and forth between AMD and Intel. I don't see Intel as a "safer choice" whatsover. Of my last 4 builds, the oldest was a 6th generation Intel, my son has a Ryzen 3800x, I have a Ryzen 5900x and my wife has a Ryzen 5600x.

When I was building mine, i went with Ryzen as it supported PCI-e Gen 4, while Intel was still stuck on PCI-E Gen 3. Figured i would get more bang for the buck out of my I/O speeds than I would with an Intel and a slightly faster single clock speed advantage.

I too had an Athlon 64 X2, which completely wiped the floor with Intel at the time.

With respect to pricing, my local microcenter is $519 for a Core i9-14900k, and a Ryzen 9 7900X3D is $399. The Intel is almost a year newer, and it was 24 cores versus 12 cores...so I would expect it to beat out the Ryzen. They are relatively close, and benchmarks don't always equate to much real world performance difference.

To each their own, I've loved my Intel and AMD cpu's and I wouldn't hesitate choosing 1 or the other when it comes time to build another machine.

bobkn said:

No. It was a CPU with immediate damage. Probably caused by damaged LGA1700 pins. (I'm morally certain that I didn't do that, but was unable to prove it.)

Click to expand...

those CPU pins are despicable and should never been designed so bad.. IMHO

bobkn said:

I thought that the Athlon 64 X2 was the best choice back when Intel was struggling with their Pentium 4, nearly 20 years ago.

Click to expand...

A little over 18 years ago my Pentium 4 @3.4GHz on an Asus P5LD2 Deluxe rev. 1.02 w/ 2GB Corsair Value select and an Asus GeForce 7800 GTX TOP EDITION ran things like Cinema Craft Encoder on ultra high settings perfectly fine. I had 2 identical 320GB Maxtors in JBOD back then (one as the source, one as the destination). The ones that were struggling to keep up with this type of workload were those who had decided to go for the Athlon 64 X2. And then I am not even mentioning the fact that these CPUs from AMD had a bad tendency to give up the struggle and simply just die on you all of a sudden when you tried to OC them with your expensive custom loop watercooling setup that was so expensive in fact, you didn't even have enough savings left to go out and buy a replacement for your CPU after it died. The only real reason why you never saw many internet tears about this was just the shame to admit.

I stand by my athon 64 x2's. Never had an issue with any of them. They were the choice for gamers back then. Intel finally turned a corner with the core i series chips.

I rarely overlooked and never ran custom waterloop setups. Heck, even today I've never used a liquid cooler.

Once I bought a motherboard with VIA Apollo 133 chipset to get faster IDE speed that Intel didn't have or that I had to pay too much for Intel. I regretted it within the first few days. I had frequent BSOD due to some incompatibility with the VIA chipset. I vowed never to do such "sacrilege" again. Only Intel, whatever that means about cost and features. Who cares about PCIe Gen 4? Do you have a graphics card that fast to take advantage of it? By the time you can afford such a card you would probably buy a newer Intel system that supports PCIe Gen 4. Don't make the same mistake.

spapakons said:

Once I bought a motherboard with VIA Apollo 133 chipset to get faster IDE speed that Intel didn't have or that I had to pay too much for Intel. I regretted it within the first few days. I had frequent BSOD due to some incompatibility with the VIA chipset. I vowed never to do such "sacrilege" again. Only Intel, whatever that means about cost and features. Who cares about PCIe Gen 4? Do you have a graphics card that fast to take advantage of it? By the time you can afford such a card you would probably buy a newer Intel system that supports PCIe Gen 4. Don't make the same mistake.

Click to expand...

It's not appropriate to tar AMD with that brush, especially in 2024.

The VIA Apollo 133 chipset dates from 2000. (nVidia also made Intel chipsets back in the aughties. Also done as cheaper alternatives.)

I doubt that "Davidleven" will base the build on a MB that doesn't support PCI-E 4.0 for the graphics slot (for a $500-600 CPU). PCI-E 5.0 wouldn't be unusual.

Advocacy is OK, but this is going way off the rails.

I just said that once I tried something different lured by the "advanced features" and I regretted it. I didn't even have a hard disk that fast back then that would benefit from the faster controller, I tried to be "future proof". Don't make the same mistake. Don't invest on features you aren't going to use in the near future and miss compatibility. Also as already said AMD doesn't surpasses Intel speed in single-core processing speed, it only has more cores. More cores are not more important that faster processing. It's like comparing two cars, one with a medium engine and more horse power and the other with larger engine but less or equal horse power. Which is best? The one with the smaller engine of course that provides more power and has less taxation. Common sense.

spapakons said:

Once I bought a motherboard with VIA Apollo 133 chipset to get faster IDE speed that Intel didn't have or that I had to pay too much for Intel. I regretted it within the first few days. I had frequent BSOD due to some incompatibility with the VIA chipset. I vowed never to do such "sacrilege" again. Only Intel, whatever that means about cost and features. Who cares about PCIe Gen 4? Do you have a graphics card that fast to take advantage of it? By the time you can afford such a card you would probably buy a newer Intel system that supports PCIe Gen 4. Don't make the same mistake.

Click to expand...

Even though I wasn't running on AMD, I also had major compatibility issues with an Abit HotRod 100 Pro (IDE-RAID controller card that uses a VIA 4in1) back in the day.

spapakons said:

I just said that once I tried something different lured by the "advanced features" and I regretted it. I didn't even have a hard disk that fast back then that would benefit from the faster controller, I tried to be "future proof". Don't make the same mistake. Don't invest on features you aren't going to use in the near future and miss compatibility. Also as already said AMD doesn't surpasses Intel speed in single-core processing speed, it only has more cores. More cores are not more important that faster processing. It's like comparing two cars, one with a medium engine and more horse power and the other with larger engine but less or equal horse power. Which is best? The one with the smaller engine of course that provides more power and has less taxation. Common sense.

Click to expand...

Automotive metaphors aside, that may apply to the current Ryzen 7000 series as opposed to the Intel Gen14 CPUs. The differences aren't large, though. One measure: Cinebench R23.

I don't trust the 9950X values, as the CPU hasn't been released yet. Looks like the single-core edge of the I7-14700K over the Ryzen 7900X is very small.

Whether the single core advantage will still hold for Intel over the Ryzen 9000 series remains to be seen. Reviews may be out as soon as next week. I'd place a small bet that even if the new Ryzens benchmark better than the comparable Intel models, they won't be highly superior.

If I was building a system in August, I don't know what I'd buy. I've never been burned by either Intel or AMD. I've owned both. I might be annoyed enough by the current Intel G13/14 debacle to go AMD. (I admit that my I9-13900K has given me no trouble, so far. It may help that I'm not a gamer.)

(An aside: in the US, there are no special taxes on auto engines based on displacement. There are CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] rules, but that doesn't seem to limit the availability of V8 engines.)

When AMD makes CPUs that crack the substrate in half, you don't see people rioting in the street. Only when Intel has another small bump in the road, that's when you better take cover, and you better do it fast.

I would not buy anything from Intel right now. Their claim is that right now, the damage caused to processors is due to a processor microcode bug that the will h as ve a fix for by mid August. Motherboard manufacturers will need to get it and test it and release a new BIOS version. So realistically I would think not before the end of August. They could also release it via Microsoft ( MS can release a Windows update that loads the microcode at boot, overwriting the micode the BIOS loaded).

Personally I think there is more dirt here that will unfold. There are already reports that MS whistleblowers are indicating more issues leading to damaging the processor. I myself would wait a month or more.

One exception. iIntel has indicated this is only an issue with their their 65 watt or greater TDP processor models.

At least Intel was honest to admit there is an issue and trying to fix it, unlike AMD that would not admit overheating of their CPUs back then. If an Intel would overheat it would reduce its speed temporarily to avoid damage and keep working unharmed. If an AMD would overheat it would freeze the entire computer and probably suffer damage. I know some will argue that Pentium 4s also had high working temperatures, such as 70-80 degrees Centigrade back then, yes, they did, but this never had an impact on productivity or the CPUs lifetime.

spapakons said:

Once I bought a motherboard with VIA Apollo 133 chipset to get faster IDE speed that Intel didn't have or that I had to pay too much for Intel. I regretted it within the first few days. I had frequent BSOD due to some incompatibility with the VIA chipset. I vowed never to do such "sacrilege" again.

Click to expand...

We can all get a bad product, or something not compatible with something else that we own or use. Could have been just a bad driver by the manufacturer. Happens all the time, to both Radeon and Nvidia cards. Neither manufacturer is impervious to problems.

spapakons said:

Only Intel, whatever that means about cost and features. Who cares about PCIe Gen 4? Do you have a graphics card that fast to take advantage of it? By the time you can afford such a card you would probably buy a newer Intel system that supports PCIe Gen 4. Don't make the same mistake.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't understand completely what you are talking about.

I cared about PCIe Gen 4, because I bought a PCIe Gen 4 NVMe drive that 100% took advantage of the PCIe Gen 4 standard. Instead of the typical 3,500MB/2,700MB/sec transfer speeds I would have gotten in a PCIe Gen 3 mobo, i got 7,000/5,100MB/sec with my 2TB WD SN850. My options were to 1). save money and buy a slower drive. 2). spend the money on the faster drive and just wait for Intel to support it. 3). Buy an AMD with the X570 chipset and take advantage of my drive speeds immediately.

I went with choice 3, and have zero regrets. This machine will be 4 years old in December. It's a Ryzen 5900x, has 64GB of low latency RAM, an EVGA 3080 FTW3 Ultra, and still rocking the 2TB SN850 drive (which has since been eclipsed by faster PCIe Gen 5 NVMe's....but I'm not ready to upgrade yet). It's been my daily use Windows 10 Gaming PC, Hyper-V virtual machine test platform for everything and everything and it has performed flawlessly for me.

I am in no way against an Intel chip and not trying to convince anybody that AMD is better........but I am here to say unequivocally that an AMD CPU is not a third rate piece of crap product that everybody should avoid because it's nothing but trouble. I am speaking from direct experience. I have 3 of them running in my household.

• Son's Ryzen 3800x, with 32GB of RAM, and an EVGA 2080 Super is 5 years old, still on original OS install from day we built it.
• My 5900x described above, 4 years old in December of 2024, still on original OS install from day we built it.
• Wifes Ryzen 5600X, with 16GB of RAM, and an EVGA 3060, 3.5 years old and till on original OS install from day we built it.
  
  

bobkn said:

If I was building a system in August, I don't know what I'd buy. I've never been burned by either Intel or AMD. I've owned both. I might be annoyed enough by the current Intel G13/14 debacle to go AMD. (I admit that my I9-13900K has given me no trouble, so far. It may help that I'm not a gamer.)

Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat, I have no idea what I would buy either. And I've never had a significant problem with either one of them. Historically i've used Intel more than AMD, but I've built at least 10 systems with AMD processors and was never disappointed.

I certainly understand having brand loyalty and such. I have historically stayed with just a few brands in any particular category. Mobos for me always Asus or Gigabyte, RAM almost always G.Skill, video cards always EVGA (makes me sad they are gone), power supplies always Seasonic, but have also used Corsair, NVMe's usually WD, Samsung, CPU no preference.....just buy what I want at the time.

I'm not personally bothered by the G13/14 intel debacle because I don't own any. My newest Intel chip runs in my Beelink Mini PC, which is a Core i5-8279u, so 8th gen.

spapakons said:

I tried to be "future proof".

Click to expand...

I never shoot for that. It's a fools errand.

spapakons said:

Also as already said AMD doesn't surpasses Intel speed in single-core processing speed, it only has more cores. More cores are not more important that faster processing.

Click to expand...

Well the newer high end Intel chips actually have more total cores anyway. So you still get the benefit in the current generation of faster single core and more cores with Intel today.

pparks1 said:

I never shoot for that. It's a fools errand.

Well the newer high end Intel chips actually have more total cores anyway. So you still get the benefit in the current generation of faster single core and more cores with Intel today.

Click to expand...

One more reason to go for Intel. Just avoid the specific CPUs that still have issues. There are many other choices.

spapakons said:

One more reason to go for Intel. Just avoid the specific CPUs that still have issues. There are many other choices.

Click to expand...

No Gen14 desktop GPUs with a TDP of 65W or more? That pretty much blocks out the high end.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

If you must buy Intel, and the current situation makes you nervous, I suggest waiting 6 months. I trust that Intel won't repeat the same problems in their next generation. I vaguely recall that they're moving away from ever-increasing core counts, as well.

spapakons said:

It's like comparing two cars, one with a medium engine and more horse power and the other with larger engine but less or equal horse power.

Click to expand...

If that medium sized engine is using a turbo charger to get the extra horse power they can keep it.

spapakons said:

One more reason to go for Intel. Just avoid the specific CPUs that still have issues. There are many other choices.

Click to expand...

I built my computer in Dec of 2020, when I chose that Ryzen 5900x. In December of 2020, the Intel platform was still on the 10th generation. The 11th generation Intel CPU's didn't come out until end of March of 2021.

Back then, the high end enthusiasts were either using the Core i7-10700, or the Core i9-10900K. Prices were about the same between them (but we all remember during Covid that all of these chips were basically impossible to find at the time and prices were higher because of scalpergate). But either way, we will go on the MSRP's which were just about the same.

The Ryzen 5900 worked on the existing Socket AM4 platfom (as did the 3000 series and upcoming 7000 series), Intel required a new mobo for the 10900k (LGA1200). The Ryzen 5900x has a lower TDP of 105 watts, compared to Intel's 125W of the 10900k. The top intel chipset then was the Z490, which didn't support PCIe Gen 4 for anybody with a Gen 4 NVMe drive. On the AMD side, PCIe Gen 4 was supported on the B450, B550, and X570 Platform. From a gaming perspective, both chips were just about neck and neck, with some games going Intel and some going AMD. In other arenas like video editing, the muticore performance of the Ryzen 5900x outperformed the 10900k by a pretty solid margin.

Here are some typical benchmarks one would expect to see.

Here is the Cinebench score from R20 back then, where higher is better.


Here is the blender benchmark where lower is better.


Handbrake conversions where lower is better.


Adobe Premier renders where lower is better.


7-Zip compression and decompression tests where higher is better.


Geekbench where higher is better



So, I'm failing to see that in December of 2020, where I made any type of substantial mistake by settling for a crappier product. Considering prices were about the same, almost all multicore performance wins going to Ryzen, lower power consumption and heat, and ability to run my NVMe at Gen 4 speeds......the Ryzen 5900x was a great choice for me.


Oh yeah, forgot that on www.tenforums.com we had a cinebench leaderboard posted for quite a while. Check me out with my 5900x in position 14 and I see all of the core i9-10900k's below me (with exception of Doorules with his 10900XE in the 11th slot w which was a $1,000+ version) And remember, those higher 13th and 14th gen Intel's didn't exist when I posted my score. And no, mine isn't overclocked at all, it's running on an Air cooler, with a 3080 that is slightly undervolted with a frequency cap to reduce power consumption.