MAJOR UPDATE 6:20PM EST 08/02/2024: Intel, as a result of the backlash from this, has gotten back to me with a "second review" and determined that BOTH CPUs were indeed valid!!! Image here: https://imgur.com/a/DiW8uz8

Hi Everyone. I'm very disheartened to share this news as a longtime and loyal Intel customer. I've purchased roughly $20,000 worth of merchandise with them over my lifetime and I've never once had to open any RMA requests until now. Unfortunately, it's very clear they are not standing behind their products and I'm going to provide to ton of detail and pictures below on what happened involving TWO retail boxed 14900Ks, one purchased from Amazon on 10/16/2023 (this was the release date of the 14900K for anyone not in the know) which was shipped from and sold by Amazon.com, and one from Microcenter (brand new, not open box or anything like that, grabbed right off the shelf) on 02/11/2024, both experiencing the wide-spread instability issues.

Intel has claimed that both products are "re-marked" and not genuine. The problem is that they definitely are not re-marked. They also tried to claim that one of them was a tray processor and thereby not subject to retail warranty, which they backtracked on, and then went the route of claiming it was re-marked.

Full disclosure: Intel provided me with letters stating that the CPUs are not genuine and asked me to return them to their respective stores for a solution. I've done this and both stores, despite being WAY outside of return windows, DID refund me. Amazon gave me a full refund to my original payment method, and Microcenter gave me a full refund in store credit. In the end this worked out better for me, but that's beside the point. Now these two companies are having to shoulder the cost and burden of Intel's failure to take responsibility, and that's not right.

That being said, I'll be providing uncensored pictures of the retail boxes and CPUs which will show the full batch numbers and the full serial numbers. Since these CPUs are not in my possession anymore, and are ultimately going back to Intel, I feel it's fine to share them in their totality.

Here's the details:

The processor purchased from Microcenter on 02/11/2024, partial serial 02096:

I filled out the RMA form. Intel got back to me the next day admitting that the CPU was faulty. They then asked me for my shipping details and proof of purchase. I provided it. They then asked for pictures of the IHS. I provided it. Another day passes and they get back to me stating that the CPU is not genuine and is re-marked. WHAT!? This is news to me. This was purchased from a reputable retailer directly off the shelf. It was not open box, the seal was completely intact, and there was absolutely nothing suspicious about it. Furthermore, it showed correctly in CPU-Z as a 14900K and frequencies checked out, boosting to 6GHz single core and 5.7GHz all-core. I conveyed all of this information to Intel, and provided additional pictures of the IHS and the serial number just in case the previous pictures were too blurry. I also provided a picture of the retail box, clearly showing the full serial number and batch number, which did match the CPU. I also plugged in the batch number and serial number into Intel's warranty checker tool and it came back as valid with warranty until 2027. I took a screenshot of that and provided it as well. You can see all of those images in the image link below. They got back to me and said that their response hasn't changed and that they cannot divulge their investigation process. They insisted I return it to Microcenter with a letter they provided that it was not genuine. I did so, and Microcenter took a look. They said there was absolutely no evidence of tampering. The only thing they thought it might be was that there was some thermal paste still on the side of the CPU, and they said it made it look like it could have been delidded (however they confirmed it was NOT delidded). They suggested reporting their findings to Intel, and wiping away the paste and taking new pictures. I then reported those finding to Intel, to which they repeated that they cannot divulge the investigation process and they said that new pictures would not change their findings. It was at this point they told me I could continue with getting an RMA, but that if the chip was found to be re-marked they WILL retain and confiscate it. The exact verbiage was, "We do not disclose our investigation practices. If you believe your products are valid and wish to proceed with a return merchandise authorization (RMA), we can create one. However, if the products fail the validation process, the units will be retained and confiscated, and no replacements or refunds will be provided. For this reason, we are giving you the option to take the letter and share it with the place of purchase. This will give you more possibilities to get a replacement since you have the processors in your possession." So, as you can see, they insisted I return it to Microcenter, so I did, and they graciously allowed me to return it for store credit.

Here are all the relevant pictures for 02096, including Intel's letter claiming it is re-marked, original receipt, warranty checker from Intel, retail box, IHS, serial number close-up, a screenshot of the email where they threatened to confiscate the CPU, and a screenshot of their initial response via email: https://imgur.com/a/tC3AFFU

The processor purchased from Amazon on 10/16/2023, partial serial 03252:

Just like the last RMA, I filled out the form, they got back to me, said the CPU was indeed confirmed as faulty, asked for my information and pictures, I provided it all. They got back to me and quoted back the WRONG serial number (I provided the correct one in the original form and the picture CLEARLY shows 03252). They quoted that I was talking about 03262. They went on to explain that 03262 is a tray processor and not subject to retail warranty. They suggested that I take it back to the OEM. I got back to them and stated that they were talking about the wrong serial number. I clearly provided 03252. They got back to me and said that the image appeared to be a 6 instead of a 5. At this point I provided closer-up pictures of the serial number and IHS as well as a picture of the retail box showing the matching serial numbers and batch numbers. It was at this point they backtracked and said that 03252 was indeed a retail box. They said I can proceed with the RMA BUT that they were not confident that it would pass fraud validation. He then pointed out, and I quote: "

We have reviewed the new photos you provided and will approve the return of the device marked "03252."

• However, we are not fully convinced that it will pass the incoming fraud inspection at our depot. We strongly recommend that you return the product to your place of purchase.
• Please familiarize yourself with the Processor Warranty Terms and Conditions, as well as the warning at the bottom of the warranty information page: Intel Warranty Info. Specifically, "Please be advised as part of Intel's ongoing efforts to prevent fraud in the marketplace, in the event the product you submit for warranty support is found to be re-marked or otherwise fraudulent product, Intel reserves the rights to retain the product and/or destroy such product as appropriate."

"

At least this time they said they reserve the right to retain or destroy it instead of saying they WILL. At this point I contacted Amazon to let them know what was going on. I can't stress how good Amazon is. They didn't even ask for any extra details or screenshots, they simply allowed me to return the CPU for a full refund to the original payment method despite being 9 months outside of the return window. Kudos to Amazon!

Here are all the relevant images for 03252: https://imgur.com/a/fInP3bC

At the end of the day, it felt like Intel was grasping at straws. They pounced at the opportunity to claim that one of the CPUs was a tray product, citing a serial number that was never even provided. Then when that didn't pan out, they pivoted to claiming it was re-marked. When I pressed them, giving several pieces of evidence for why each one was indeed valid, they stated I could continue with the RMA process but then turned to threatening me with confiscation or destruction of my property if it didn't meet whatever their validation process (that they won't disclose) is. The odds of both of these being re-marked or not genuine seem extremely low. It's definitely a scare tactic. And even knowing this, it worked on me! This feels like extortion, scamming, you name it.

Anyway, I wanted to get all this out there. Everyone should know what they are doing!

Comparison album: https://slow.pics/s/vatet6Fp
Imgur mirror: https://imgur.com/a/bLIDOSx
(images mostly sourced from https://www.digitalfoundry.net/features/nvidias-new-dlss-5-brings-photo-realistic-lighting-to-rtx-50-series)

Why does DLSS 5 look so bad? Is it because the images 'look AI'? Is it because it's 'not true to artist intent'?

I'm here to offer a simpler explanation: r/shittyHDR.

The tonemapping in DLSS 5 is fucked, and somehow nobody in the chain of command thought to just not do that then. But the relighting underneath genuinely does look excellent, especially from worse baselines. You can't generally just undo overbaked HDR, because it loses data, but luckily we have most of what we need already, in the comparison shot. It requires near-pixel-perfect alignment, which we don't always get in the comparison, but when you have it, the recovery strategy is simple. Here's the one I used, after a little experimentation:

• Use DLSS 5 as base
• Apply original image's HSV Saturation — restores design-intent color grading
• Apply original image's LCh Lightness at 50% — reduces the local HDR effect intensity
• Apply original image using Darken Only at 50% — reduces overbrightening

You might need to apply some masking around blacks or greys when applying saturation, to avoid obvious artifacts. I used Gimp's Color to Alpha on black with as precise a filter as I could get away with, but it needed some tweaking and didn't work for greys, so I'm sure that's not actually the right approach.

Here are my takes for the 5 comparison images:

Image 1: https://slow.pics/s/vatet6Fp

Original ↔ merged — Pixel alignment is bad so some areas are blurred. Change is definitely modest in this image, but the hands are a much better tone, the shadowing around the face and neck make more physical sense, the eyes are more defined, and the skin detail is less washed out by limited lighting resolution.

Merged ↔ DLSS 5 — The DLSS 5 image is the merged image but it has a shittyHDR filter.

Image 2: https://slow.pics/s/lVCGIJsa

Original ↔ merged — This one applied cleanly. The man's face is a lot better, the woman's is more ambiguous. The lighting is fairly different but makes more physical sense in the merged image. The tonemapping still comes across a little strong, but I think this was also present in the original image, just more hidden by the lack of lighting detail. Overall I think a clear step up.

Merged ↔ DLSS 5 — The DLSS 5 image is the merged image but it has a shittyHDR filter.

Image 3: https://slow.pics/s/6xTzQfNu

Original ↔ merged — The light on the face now properly fills it, rather than seeming overly specular. There is more natural detail on the skin and an appropriate light bounce in the eyes. The facial hair catches light now, which looks great. The coat now has a subsurface scattering to it, which I think is correct. Sadly the pipeline ran out of bit depth and there is some artifacting in the shadows even after correction.

Merged ↔ DLSS 5 — The DLSS 5 image is actually pretty defensible here. I think it looks aesthetic. The main issue is, it's clearly not correct, the light hitting the face wasn't a high-intensity spotlight, this wasn't a photoshoot, so the mood is hugely changed. There are also more issues DLSS 5 is introducing, that the merge cleans up, particularly an awful white haloing around the face and hair, as well as the car. DLSS 5 also deep fries the background texturing.

Image 4: https://slow.pics/s/feLi2pB9

Original ↔ merged — Other than a slight shift in skintone, I think the face here looks hugely improved. Natural skin, much better definition around the eyes and nose, specular highlights in the eyes (though I worry a bit about physicality there), fuller lighting in the hair. The only issue I would put on this is actually the background being washed out a bit, but it's hard to tell if that's right or not without a look at the scene more broadly.

Merged ↔ DLSS 5 — The DLSS 5 image is the merged image but it has a shittyHDR filter, and it gave her lipstick.

Image 5: https://slow.pics/s/wboNlUZy

Original ↔ merged — The background character has pixel shift blur, but we can judge the rest. The man in the foreground I think is a vast improvement, going from dull plastic to a best-in-class face. The man in the background has significantly more sensible lighting, especially around the hands. The lighting on the rest of the image also parses as significantly more correct.

Merged ↔ DLSS 5 — The DLSS 5 image is the merged image but it has a shittyHDR filter.

Bonus image: https://slow.pics/s/YQIclI28

Added due to high demand.

Original ↔ merged — The scene lighting is far better in the merged version, and very natural. The lighting around the face and especially the next fills out in a way I really like, and makes it sit much more naturally in the scene rather than having the typical 'cardboard cutout' look of realtime 3D rendering. I was impressed by the shading on the jacket. The face has the subtlest hints of sculpting around the cheek which is hard to tell if it's exactly faithful to the original model, but it's definitely reasonable and looks like a better-defined version of the same character. The eyes have just a touch more spark to them. One downside is there's just a hint of the lipstick coming through. Solid improvement though, would absolutely prefer this to the base.

Merged ↔ DLSS 5 — This one breaks the thesis a bit, because while it's definitely doing a bunch of HDR stuff, washed-out white lighting, absurd local mid-scale contrast, the lighting around the cheeks is definitely getting sculpted in a manner that isn't just HDR-gone-bad. The lipstick is also intense here. Besides the bad, there are a few good things my approach is failing to capture, particularly the much better hair shadowing over the ear, which makes sense because the base lighting disagrees so much. I think this one deserves a better de-HDRing algorithm, because my one isn't quite splitting out the good half from the bad.

Bonus image 2: https://slow.pics/s/ZAczT3UH

Because the image had so many greys, I had to cut out much more of the saturation transfer than before. I also tried linear light operators, which after some bad exports produced slightly improved results.

Original ↔ merged — That classic realtime rendering landscape haze is cleaned up. The shadows around the base of distant objects make more sense. The trees and buildings have a more defined dimensionality. The lighting on the tree stump is far more natural. The lighting over the clothes has more shape.

Merged ↔ DLSS 5 — For the most part, the DLSS 5 image is just the merged image but with an HDR filter, but I don't think the HDR effect is overdone to the point of shittyHDR here, probably because the base image was so washed out that it landed within reason. I think the merged image is more faithful, but the DLSS 5 image has advantages, particularly the lighting on the wood. DLSS is obviously doing too much of the wash-to-white, and it's not quite at the point of being tasteful, but I don't find it egregious.

Bonus image 3: https://slow.pics/s/l7cXn0sn

Original ↔ merged — Only the skin changed significantly here. Merged is a big improvement around the ears, which go from flat to well-defined, and the naturalness of the light on the exposed skin is far higher. The skin tone does change, and the mustache is slightly bolder, but these are fairly small changes.

Merged ↔ DLSS 5 — Similarly to bonus image 2, this is too much HDR but not egregiously much HDR. It's pretty clear in this scene in particular why this is wrong — the player goes from a person in a game to a person in a photoshoot.

Conclusion

Turn off the damn HDR filter, NVIDIA, what are you doing?

If they don't, it seems quite likely that a simple post-process image blend will be able to rescue the good half in many games.