Intel slapped with class action lawsuit for Raptor Lake CPU instability issues — chipmaker accused of consciously selling defective chips

[Daniel Nenni]

Raptor Lake. | Credit: Intel

This week, a class action lawsuit was filed against Intel in a federal court. The plaintiff, Mark Vanvalkenburgh, accuses Intel of knowingly selling defective 13th Generation Raptor Lake and 14th Generation Raptor Lake Refresh processors. The plaintiff seeks damages and, in the alternative, restitution. Lawyers from Dovel & Luner expect other Intel customers to join the class action. There are some catches with this lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed in San Jose, California, comes from Mark Vanvalkenburgh of Orchard Park, New York, who purchased an Intel Core i7-13700K processor in January 2023. According to the complaint, Vanvalkenburgh encountered frequent problems, including sudden screen blackouts and unexpected computer restarts. This summer, he attempted to apply an Intel patch intended to fix stability issues in the company’s Raptor Lake CPUs, but this solution failed to resolve the malfunctions.

“After purchasing the product, Plaintiff learned that the processor was defective, unstable, and crashing at high rates,” the lawsuit reads. “The processor caused issues in his computer, including random screen blackouts and random computer restarts. These issues were not resolved even after he attempted to install a patch issued by Intel for its 13th Generation processors. As a result, he did not get what he paid for. Had Plaintiff known the truth about the product, he would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it.”

The plaintiff asserts that Intel was aware of the instability problems with Raptor Lake CPUs before his purchase. He claims that the company’s internal testing, conducted before and after the processors’ release, revealed these defects. Despite this, Intel allegedly continued to market the processors as high-performance products without disclosing any potential for instability, raising accusations of fraud, breach of warranty, and violation of New York consumer protection laws.

In July 2024, Intel publicly addressed the problem called ‘Vmin Shift Instability,’ noting that stability issues stemmed from elevated operating voltage levels in its 13th Generation and 14th Generation Core’ Raptor Lake’ processors, which physically damaged the core’s clock tree circuit.

To mitigate the issue, Intel has released three microcode patches. The first patch (0x125) was issued in June to adjust the Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost (eTVB) algorithm—the second patch (0x129), followed in August, aimed at reducing unnecessary high-voltage requests. In September, Intel released its third patch (0x12B), which combined the previous fixes and added protections to prevent excess voltage demands during idle or light load.

There is a catch, though: once the clock tree circuit is damaged, patches will not help, and a replacement is needed, something that Intel has been clear about. To ensure that all its customers got their replacements, Intel extended warranties on Raptor Lake CPUs by two years.

Apparently, the plaintiff considered replacing his CPU inadequate relief and decided to file a nationwide class action suit. He now seeks damages (including treble damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages where applicable), restitution, disgorgement, and an order awarding the plaintiff and all other class members damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

Intel slapped with class action lawsuit for Raptor Lake CPU instability issues — chipmaker accused of consciously selling defective chips

Intel accused of knowingly selling defective Raptor Lake processors in a class action suit.

www.yahoo.com

 

[blueone]

The only people who are likely to benefit from this suit are the class action attorneys, who will make millions, while the class members may get a few hundred dollars.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Does anyone know more about this on the technology side? What exactly happened? Anytype of explanation? Clock trees are serious business but there are all types of simulation tools to prevent this type of thing.

 

[siliconbruh999]

Does anyone know more about this on the technology side? What exactly happened? Anytype of explanation? Clock trees are serious business but there are all types of simulation tools to prevent this type of thing.

Yes i can explain apparently Intel CPUs were crashing system when playing video games particularly those in unreal engine during a process called shader compilation.
Also it would just crash on you randomly.

Initial it was thought of Motherboard vendors using non default settings like setting power limit to 4000W instead of 250W as Intel specs says and many other settings but this was not the root cause

Apparently the CPU was requesting 1.6V or greater voltage from the Motherboard VRMs which caused this issue also there were faulty batch of CPU Released as well during this timeframe .Intel said they identified the issue in a clocktree and they limited the voltage to 1.55V in the BIOS as well

Intel says its Raptor Lake crashing chip nightmare is over

Warranty, mitigations, and a root cause diagnosis.

www.theverge.com

 

[XYang2023]

Does anyone know more about this on the technology side? What exactly happened? Anytype of explanation? Clock trees are serious business but there are all types of simulation tools to prevent this type of thing.

On the non-technical side, I am currently using two 13th-gen processors (i5-13500 and i5-13600K) and one 14th-gen processor (i7-14700K). One of them is used as a Linux workstation (24/7) for research tasks. I have had them for 1–2 years and have not experienced any issues so far. I believe those reports are in the minority.

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

 

[ChrisGar]

Does anyone know more about this on the technology side? What exactly happened? Anytype of explanation? Clock trees are serious business but there are all types of simulation tools to prevent this type of thing.

Root cause hasn't really been described. Putting out microcode patches to limit VDD does not really describe the root cause. (or calling it VMIN "degradation")
Also -- CPUs that already have the problem cannot be fixed by microcode changes (according to Intel).

Intel initially handled this poorly -- saying it was their customer's fault. (both board manufacturers and users) Later they had to backtrack on that.

I think this is a situation where if it wasn't for users making youtube videos and bloggers describing the problem (and anonymous leakers from their customers) -- this problem would not have been publicly acknowledged.

 

[hist78]

Root cause hasn't really been described. Putting out microcode patches to limit VDD does not really describe the root cause. (or calling it VMIN "degradation")
Also -- CPUs that already have the problem cannot be fixed by microcode changes (according to Intel).

Intel initially handled this poorly -- saying it was their customer's fault. (both board manufacturers and users) Later they had to backtrack on that.

I think this is a situation where if it wasn't for users making youtube videos and bloggers describing the problem (and anonymous leakers from their customers) -- this problem would not have been publicly acknowledged.

"Here’s a slightly longer version, from Intel’s public blog post:

Vmin Shift Instability Root Cause

Intel® has localized the Vmin Shift Instability issue to a clock tree circuit within the IA core which is particularly vulnerable to reliability aging under elevated voltage and temperature. Intel has observed these conditions can lead to a duty cycle shift of the clocks and observed system instability.

Intel® has identified four (4) operating scenarios that can lead to Vmin shift in affected processors:

1) Motherboard power delivery settings exceeding Intel power guidance.

a. Mitigation: Intel® Default Settings recommendations for Intel® Core™ 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors.

2) eTVB Microcode algorithm which was allowing Intel® Core™ 13th and 14th Gen i9 desktop processors to operate at higher performance states even at high temperatures.

a. Mitigation: microcode 0x125 (June 2024) addresses eTVB algorithm issue.

3) Microcode SVID algorithm requesting high voltages at a frequency and duration which can cause Vmin shift.

a. Mitigation: microcode 0x129 (August 2024) addresses high voltages requested by the processor.

4) Microcode and BIOS code requesting elevated core voltages which can cause Vmin shift especially during periods of idle and/or light activity.

a. Mitigation: Intel® is releasing microcode 0x12B, which encompasses 0x125 and 0x129 microcode updates, and addresses elevated voltage requests by the processor during idle and/or light activity periods. "

Source:

Intel says its Raptor Lake crashing chip nightmare is over

Warranty, mitigations, and a root cause diagnosis.

www.theverge.com

 

[hist78]

Root cause hasn't really been described. Putting out microcode patches to limit VDD does not really describe the root cause. (or calling it VMIN "degradation")
Also -- CPUs that already have the problem cannot be fixed by microcode changes (according to Intel).

Intel initially handled this poorly -- saying it was their customer's fault. (both board manufacturers and users) Later they had to backtrack on that.

I think this is a situation where if it wasn't for users making youtube videos and bloggers describing the problem (and anonymous leakers from their customers) -- this problem would not have been publicly acknowledged.

In many corporate crises, honesty and a swift response are critical. Intel knew there were problems for a year or more, but only issued microcode fixes in August and October 2024. I don't think Intel needed such a long time to identify the problems and provide solutions. I guess heavy replacement costs were one of the reasons for the slow response. But this delay will cost Intel both its reputation and a huge amount of money eventually.

On the other hand, Intel and some of its observers downplayed the problems by (maybe unintentionally) using statistics or historical numbers, such as:

A. This Raptor Lake problem is not unusual across different vendors and products. One of AMD's products actually may have worse records than Raptor Lake.

The problem is that the customers who bought the questioned CPUs that were made by Intel, not AMD. This type of talking points can only make customers angrier and more vocal.

B. The Raptor Lake failure rate is not high.

The CPU failure rates for various products, whether high or low, mean nothing to a customer who bought a troubled Raptor Lake PC. If the customer only bought one PC and it went bad, for that particular customer, the Intel CPU failure rate is 100%, not the 0.0001% failure rate Intel’s QC department gathered.

It's like if a friend were killed by a truck while riding a bicycle to work. I went to her home and told her husband not to be too sad because, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2023 was 1.26, which is a decrease from the rate of 1.33 in 2022.

I think I would be kicked out of his house quickly.