Should enterprises be concerned about Intel’s crashing CPU flaw?

The flaw that crashes certain models of Intel’s high-end 13th- and 14th-generation desktop processors could also impact more than just gamers, a Forrester Research analyst said Monday.

Alvin Nguyen, senior analyst, whose coverage areas include modern technology operations, enterprise architecture and semiconductors, said the issues with the i7 and i9 13th- and 14th-generation processors, code named Raptor Lake, “will impact enterprise users who are using these CPUs in gaming and creative tasks, such as graphic design and video editing (gaming, media, scientific/R&D markets) that can also push the CPU in multi-core activities. The warranty extension and handling RMAs [Return Material Authorizations] will be impacted here, since having RMAs from enterprise customers means higher volumes and financial impact than from just regular consumers.”

Nguyen added, “The damage to the Intel brand from mishandling laptops and desktops from enterprise customers is still there, but I would expect Intel to handle this properly due to the risk it presents.”

Intel, which released a microcode patch late last week to fix the problem, “needs to execute their business strategies and plan flawlessly to get past their current issues and market challenges,” he said.

Nguyen said that, for any organization using Intel products, “I do not foresee an immediate need to change away due to market position and the timeframe for vendors/partners to transition to other suppliers.”

However, he said, “if there are continued market challenges and Intel needs to take more corrective actions (in the next year), enterprise organizations should look at diversifying their product portfolio. Do not eliminate Intel, since they will continue to have a presence and may take over a leadership position in the high-tech market with their fab [chip fabrication] plants in 2027 and beyond, but mitigate the risk associated with having Intel (or having just Intel) products.”

According to Nguyen, company’s recent actions — reducing their workforce by 15% and eliminating “non-essential” activity — raises these concerns:

• The 15% workforce reduction frees up capital, but are there enough staff redundancies to support this or are they eliminating some essential personnel?
• Eliminating “non-essential” activities, like the postponement of the Innovation Expo when there are significant product releases coming up, means that there isn’t a coherent marketing push for consumers, partners, analysts, and press.
• There are, he said, “questions remaining about how well Intel can handle additional issues: is this enough to address all immediate and upcoming short-term challenges? Or will they be forced to do more and put themselves in a worse position that may impact them long-term?”

John Annand, research practice lead at Info-Tech Research Group, put a slightly different spin on the situation, saying that any lack of concern from enterprise customers about the flaw “probably says more about how far chip makers have slipped from being the center of the IT world than about the objective scale and severity of the problems facing Intel’s Raptor Lake CPUs.” 

When the Pentium floating point bug came to light in 1994, he said, “it was at the top of everyone’s mind and quickly part of the broader cultural zeitgeist. We didn’t have memes back then, but we did have the B plot of the 2002 West Wing episode when a ‘blue chip company’ found a defect in one of its 80 million deployed computer chips.”

Today, said Annand, “unless a company CEO has Intel in their personal stock portfolio, this current crop of Intel woes just isn’t demanding the same level of executive attention: Reports put the defect rate at four-to-five times that of previous chip generations, which would mean it remains solidly in the single-digit range.”

The vast majority of documented crashes, he said, “occur with certain workloads under specific conditions that cause the CPU to draw too much voltage. Unless you routinely turbocharge your processor (as many retail consumers and gamers are wont to do), maybe this just doesn’t rate high enough on the enterprise risk register to get noticed?”

He pointed out, though, “of course, this is not good for Intel. Consumer sales (along with its Foundry business) were one of the two bright spots on the recently ill-received financial report.”

Thankfully, for Intel at least, “there seems to be a microcode fix coming out, which would suggest this is NOT a foundry or fabrication problem, else Intel might have to start returning some of the government subsidy money it has been gobbling on the promise of building a safe North American supply of silicon. Is it enough to change purchase intention? It has been a long time since an enterprise buyer selection had bunny suits and a specific musical hook in the list of must-haves on an RFP.” 

So, no, he said, the enterprise should not worry about this: “They have (rightfully) outsourced this problem to the HPs, Lenovos, and Asus, from whom they buy their PC fleets.  Let the enterprise focus its time and energy on dealing with risks and opportunities that will differentiate them in a crowded marketplace. The choice of PC processor alone just isn’t enough to move the needle on overall business success.”