Intel extends Raptor Lake CPU warranty by two years due to crashing issues

[Daniel Sims]

In brief: Intel previously confirmed that owners of 13th or 14th-gen Raptor Lake processors that are crashing or suffering from other instability issues must return them to resolve the problem. Now, the company is giving customers more breathing room to order RMAs without additional costs. Those with Raptor Lake CPUs that still work fine should switch to the company's default voltage baselines.

Amid high failure rates, Intel will offer two years of extended warranty for 13th- and 14th-generation desktop processors sold at retail. The company will share further details over the next few days.

The extension only applies to independently purchased boxed CPUs. Customers seeking returns should contact Intel customer support. Impacted Raptor Lake processors purchased with pre-built systems are subject to manufacturer warranties, and users must contact their OEM's customer support.

Retail Intel CPUs normally include a three-year limited warranty. The oldest 13th-gen chips sold around the end of 2022 would have remained within warranty until late 2025. The extension presumably pushes the deadline to Q4 2027 or early 2028.

Owners of chips from Intel's 13th- and 14th-gen Core lineups have reported instability and high crash rates for most of 2024. The issue mostly affects high-end K processors, but recent reports suggest that every desktop CPU with a TDP of 65W or above is susceptible.

Intel traced the problem to a microcode algorithm error, which it plans to address with a mid-August patch. Unfortunately, units already exhibiting instability have likely received permanent damage, so the update won't fix them, thus the warranty extension. Users who haven't yet experienced crashes should engage Intel's recommended baseline voltages and knock on wood.

Chipzilla has refused calls to recall the affected CPUs. Developer Alderon Games suggested a recall after high failure rates pushed the company to switch to AMD processors going forward.

Furthermore, a VFX studio claimed that half of its Intel systems have failed, and a major European retailer reported that RMAs for Raptor Lake processors at least tripled the prior 12th-generation Alder Lake chips. Additionally, Intel faces the threat of a class action lawsuit if enough people find its customer service experience unsatisfactory.

If you put $100 into Intel 25 years ago, your investment would still be worth $100. pic.twitter.com/CxtnA7P8fR

– Trung Phan (@TrungTPhan) August 2, 2024

In other bad news for Intel, the company recently announced a massive round of layoffs. Chipzilla slashed over 15 percent of its workforce – around 17,500 employees. Predicting lower-than-expected revenue for the third quarter, Intel also suspended fourth-quarter dividend sharing.

Permalink to story:

Intel extends Raptor Lake CPU warranty by two years due to crashing issues

 

[trparky]

It's better than nothing, but really it should be a ten-year warranty while at the same time, Intel is forced to continue making those chips until the year 2034 to accommodate people who might run a system for ten or so years.

Yes, it's going to cost them a lot to implement what I said above but hey, Intel got themselves into this mess by pushing their architecture too damn far and this is their punishment.

 

[HardReset]

Excellent news. For years I have fought against Intel fanboys who have claimed Intel CPUs being more stable than AMD CPUs. Now even Intel admits their own CPUs are unstable. Finally we have undeniable evidence that AMD indeed make stable CPUs and Intel makes unstable CPUs. This is dream come true

 

[Achaios]

Unfortunately Intel is in serious trouble. Intel's share price took a nosedive today.

For consumers this is bad news.

A CPU market dominated by AMD is just as bad as a CPU market dominated by Intel, as was the case in the last decade.

 

[IcyKn1ght]

It's better than nothing, but really it should be a ten-year warranty while at the same time, Intel is forced to continue making those chips until the year 2034 to accommodate people who might run a system for ten or so years.

Yes, it's going to cost them a lot to implement what I said above but hey, Intel got themselves into this mess by pushing their architecture too damn far and this is their punishment.

I'm one who hasn't built a PC in 11 years, so a 10-year warranty would deliver further peace-of-mind. G•Skill offers a lifetime warranty on their RAM, which greatly influenced my decision to purchase that brand's RAM in my build, and it's still flawless after 11 years. Why can't Intel stand behind their products in the way G•Skill does?

 

[trparky]

I'm one who hasn't built a PC in 11 years, so a 10-year warranty would deliver further peace-of-mind. G•Skill offers a lifetime warranty on their RAM, which greatly influenced my decision to purchase that brand's RAM in my build, and it's still flawless after 11 years. Why can't Intel stand behind their products in the way G•Skill does?

G-Skill RAM has a lifetime warranty? I didn't know that. Makes me glad that I have G-Skill DDR5 memory in my system.

 

[HardReset]

A CPU market dominated by AMD is just as bad as a CPU market dominated by Intel, as was the case in the last decade.

And that is why?

 

[birthdaymonkey]

And that is why?

AMD is not your friend. Just like Intel, they're an amoral corporation that exists to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. If they can charge more for their parts due to lack of competition, they will. They've done it in the past when they had a period of performance dominance in the early 2000s. The demise of Intel would lead to a total monopoly in the x86 space, which would lead to significant price increases and probably technological stagnation.

 

[HardReset]

AMD is not your friend. Just like Intel, they're an amoral corporation that exists to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. If they can charge more for their parts due to lack of competition, they will. They've done it in the past when they had a period of performance dominance in the early 2000s. The demise of Intel would lead to a total monopoly in the x86 space, which would lead to significant price increases and probably technological stagnation.

Because AMD wants money for their CPUs so that they can develop better CPUs, AMD is as bad as Intel? I'm pretty sure you know about Intel antitrust case against AMD. Now, have AMD made anything that compares to that? No. That is, AMD is at this moment much more my friend than Intel.

Also, since Athlon AMD has driven technology forward on x86 space. Yeah, they made some wrong decisions and had financial problems, but on many cases they were years ahead Intel (IMC, chiplets etc) and architecture wise AMD has always at least tried to make big improvements, unlike Intel.

It's pretty hard to put so much BS on short post like that. Congratulations, I guess.

 

[i like foxes]

People complain Intel is trying to deter users from RMA-ing by false statements like CPU is fake and etc. Shame on you Intel !

 

[Achaios]

Because AMD wants money for their CPUs so that they can develop better CPUs, AMD is as bad as Intel? I'm pretty sure you know about Intel antitrust case against AMD. Now, have AMD made anything that compares to that? No. That is, AMD is at this moment much more my friend than Intel.

Also, since Athlon AMD has driven technology forward on x86 space. Yeah, they made some wrong decisions and had financial problems, but on many cases they were years ahead Intel (IMC, chiplets etc) and architecture wise AMD has always at least tried to make big improvements, unlike Intel.

It's pretty hard to put so much BS on short post like that. Congratulations, I guess.

If you feel AMD & Lisa Su are selfless uh John Brownites standing up against evil Godzilla, I've got some seaside property I'd like to sell you in Arkansas.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Excellent news. For years I have fought against Intel fanboys who have claimed Intel CPUs being more stable than AMD CPUs. Now even Intel admits their own CPUs are unstable. Finally we have undeniable evidence that AMD indeed make stable CPUs and Intel makes unstable CPUs. This is dream come true

They don't, this is just not true, go look at the failure rate at Puget Systems.

You guys should really do some research on a topic your posting in. Interwebs 101

 

[Loadedaxe]

People complain Intel is trying to deter users from RMA-ing by false statements like CPU is fake and etc. Shame on you Intel !

Thats not the case, go read the actual "true" story.

 

[HardReset]

If you feel AMD & Lisa Su are selfless uh John Brownites standing up against evil Godzilla, I've got some seaside property I'd like to sell you in Arkansas.

So far, yes. Speculation is useless in this case. AMD needs all support against Chipzilla.

They don't, this is just not true, go look at the failure rate at Puget Systems.

You guys should really do some research on a topic your posting in. Interwebs 101

Puget systems only list known failures. In other words, if someone buys workstatiom (yeah, HEDT workstation) with Raptor Lake, how likely he can notice there is something wrong with CPU? Because, if it crashes, it Cannot be Intel CPU failure. So simple.

Puget systems should test every system they delivered. They obviously didn't do that. Therefore their "failure rate" claims are broken.

 

[Loadedaxe]

So far, yes. Speculation is useless in this case. AMD needs all support against Chipzilla.



Puget systems only list known failures. In other words, if someone buys workstatiom (yeah, HEDT workstation) with Raptor Lake, how likely he can notice there is something wrong with CPU? Because, if it crashes, it Cannot be Intel CPU failure. So simple.

Puget systems should test every system they delivered. They obviously didn't do that. Therefore their "failure rate" claims are broken.

Thats what this discussion is about.

You guys are misreading me. I am in no way defending Intel, but lets not pretend that both companies don't have issues, no matter how. AMD is not the saint that everyone makes them out to be.

Puget Systems' Perspective on Intel CPU Instability Issues

You may have heard about instability issues with Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors. The issue has been gaining more attention as time goes on. I am posting to share what we've experienced here at Puget Systems, and what we're doing about it.

www.pugetsystems.com

 

[HardReset]

Thats what this discussion is about.

You guys are misreading me. I am in no way defending Intel, but lets not pretend that both companies don't have issues, no matter how. AMD is not the saint that everyone makes them out to be.

Puget Systems' Perspective on Intel CPU Instability Issues

You may have heard about instability issues with Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors. The issue has been gaining more attention as time goes on. I am posting to share what we've experienced here at Puget Systems, and what we're doing about it.

www.pugetsystems.com

How about telling about those AMD "issues"? There are nothing that compares against worst Intel has done.

Like I already said, Puget systems are not testing all systems. Those statistics are only those that have been RMAd to them. And when Intel probably releases tool that tests if CPU is faulty or there is some other definitive test, those statistics may change. Also, they told they didn't use default settings.

 

[i like foxes]

They don't, this is just not true, go look at the failure rate at Puget Systems.

You guys should really do some research on a topic your posting in. Interwebs 101

You read better , they have used more conservative BIOS settings which have obviously saved the processors of Intel .They ve been doing this since 2017

 

[i like foxes]

Thats not the case, go read the actual "true" story.

You go read the story ! The headline of the article -
Intel customer bemoans CPU RMA process — furious owner says Intel claims brand new Core i9-14900K chips purchased from Amazon and Micro Center are fake

 

[Endymio]

You read better , they have used more conservative BIOS settings which have obviously saved the processors of Intel .They ve been doing this since 2017

Their "more conservative" settings are the actual maximums allowed by Intel, rather than the stealth overclocking some other vendors perform.

And the article clearly states their failure rates for 13th/14th gen processors is lower than what they experienced with Gen 11.

 

[HardReset]

Their "more conservative" settings are the actual maximums allowed by Intel, rather than the stealth overclocking some other vendors perform.

And the article clearly states their failure rates for 13th/14th gen processors is lower than what they experienced with Gen 11.

CPU does not work at all = failure.

Raptor Lake rotting issue = stability issue.

If you read more carefully, they don't say anything about CPU stability.

 

[Endymio]

CPU does not work at all = failure.
Raptor Lake rotting issue = stability issue.

If you read more carefully, they don't say anything about CPU stability.

Was this post a joke? This particular "stability issue" is considered a failure mode by both Intel and Puget Systems. When a customer reports this issue, Puget identifies it as a field failure in their database, and sends out a replacement part.

This particular portion of the article was particularly interesting:

"...Based on the failure rate data we currently have, it is interesting to see that 14th Gen is still nowhere near the failure rates of the Intel Core 11th Gen processors back in 2021 and also substantially lower than AMD Ryzen 5000 (both in terms of shop and field failures) ..."

 

[HardReset]

Was this post a joke? This particular "stability issue" is considered a failure mode by both Intel and Puget Systems. When a customer reports this issue, Puget identifies it as a field failure in their database, and sends out a replacement part.

This particular portion of the article was particularly interesting:

"...Based on the failure rate data we currently have, it is interesting to see that 14th Gen is still nowhere near the failure rates of the Intel Core 11th Gen processors back in 2021 and also substantially lower than AMD Ryzen 5000 (both in terms of shop and field failures) ..."

It's not a joke. You must understand what they are exactly saying. Once again:

Failure = CPU is dead. It's broken, it won't even boot.

Intel issue is not about CPU being dead, it's about CPU being unstable. It still works and user have to prove that problem is indeed CPU. Not software, not motherboard, not memory, not ....

Unsurprisingly, CPU is about last compoment that users suspect to be reason for random crashes.

To put it short, Puget systems don't say Anything about how many their Raptor Lake CPUs they sold are suffering from this rotting issue. If they do, feel free to post quote about that.

 

[Endymio]

It's not a joke. You must understand what they are exactly saying....Intel issue is not about CPU being dead, it's about CPU being unstable. It still works PUs they sold are suffering from this rotting issue. If they do, feel free to post quote about that.

Oops! The article doesn't say that at all, nor even imply it. In fact:

"You may have heard about instability issues with Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors. The issue has attracted more attention as time goes on. I am posting to share what we’ve experienced here at Puget Systems and what we’re doing about it....[Some] cloud gaming providers have come forward with concerning failure rates upwards of 50%... we are definitely experiencing CPU failures higher than our historical average, especially with 14th Gen. We have enough data to know that we don’t have an acute problem on the horizon with 13th Gen — it is more of a slow burn.... The recent spike in 14th Gen failure rates stands out mostly because how incredibly low historical CPU failure rates tend to be."

 

[HardReset]

Oops! The article doesn't say that at all, nor even imply it. In fact:

"You may have heard about instability issues with Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors. The issue has attracted more attention as time goes on. I am posting to share what we’ve experienced here at Puget Systems and what we’re doing about it....[Some] cloud gaming providers have come forward with concerning failure rates upwards of 50%... we are definitely experiencing CPU failures higher than our historical average, especially with 14th Gen. We have enough data to know that we don’t have an acute problem on the horizon with 13th Gen — it is more of a slow burn.... The recent spike in 14th Gen failure rates stands out mostly because how incredibly low historical CPU failure rates tend to be."

Exactly, they don't actually say anything. That is more like Intel paid advertisement than anything else. They are not saying what is definition of "failure", they are not saying how many "failured" CPUs are rotten, they are not saying how they discover rotten CPUs...

Basically, whole article is just pure BS.

 

[Endymio]

Exactly, they don't actually say anything. That is more like Intel paid advertisement than anything else. They are not saying what is definition of "failure", they are not saying how many "failured" CPUs are rotten, they are not saying how they discover rotten CPUs...

Basically, whole article is just pure BS.

It's rare to find a post this out of touch with reality. Puget clearly notes that "failures" encompass this instability issue. And while they don't break down failures by type, even if we assume the worst case of 100% failures from this issue, that rate is STILL lower than total failures for Intel Gen 11, or Ryzen 5000.