Monday, August 5th 2024
Puget Systems Releases CPU Failure Report: AMD CPUs Achieve Higher Failure Rate Than Intel 13th and 14th Generation
A fleet of recent reports have highlighted stability issues affecting Intel's 13th and 14th-generation desktop processors, raising concerns among consumers and industry professionals. The problem, which has gained significant attention over the past few months, is related to the processors' physical degradation over time. Custom PC builder Puget Systems has shared insights from its experience with these processors, revealing a nuanced perspective on the issue. While it has observed an increase in CPU failures, particularly with the 14th-generation chips, its failure rates remain notably lower than those reported by some game development studios and cloud gaming providers, who have cited failure rates as high as 50%. An interesting observation is that Puget Systems recorded a higher failure rate with AMD Ryzen 5000 and Ryzen 7000 series than Intel's 13/14th generation, with most failures happening at Puget's shop rather than the "field" in customers' hands.
Puget Systems attributes their more modest failure rates of Intel processors to their conservative approach to power management settings. By adhering strictly to Intel's specifications and developing their own power settings that don't hurt performance, they've managed to mitigate some of the stability issues plaguing other users. Intel has acknowledged the problem and announced plans to release a microcode patch by mid-August, with extended warranty program. This update is expected to prevent further degradation but may not reverse existing damage. Despite the elevated failure rates, Puget Systems' data shows that the issue, while concerning, still needs to be at critical levels for their operations. The company reports that failure rates for 13th and 14th gen Intel processors, while higher than ideal, are still lower than those they experienced with Intel's 11th gen chips and some AMD Ryzen processors. In response to the situation, Puget Systems is taking several steps, including maintaining its current power management practices, promptly validating Intel's upcoming microcode update, and extending warranties for affected customers. Below, you can see failure rates by month, by Intel's Core generation, as well as by "shop" vs "field" testing.
Source:
Puget Systems
Puget Systems attributes their more modest failure rates of Intel processors to their conservative approach to power management settings. By adhering strictly to Intel's specifications and developing their own power settings that don't hurt performance, they've managed to mitigate some of the stability issues plaguing other users. Intel has acknowledged the problem and announced plans to release a microcode patch by mid-August, with extended warranty program. This update is expected to prevent further degradation but may not reverse existing damage. Despite the elevated failure rates, Puget Systems' data shows that the issue, while concerning, still needs to be at critical levels for their operations. The company reports that failure rates for 13th and 14th gen Intel processors, while higher than ideal, are still lower than those they experienced with Intel's 11th gen chips and some AMD Ryzen processors. In response to the situation, Puget Systems is taking several steps, including maintaining its current power management practices, promptly validating Intel's upcoming microcode update, and extending warranties for affected customers. Below, you can see failure rates by month, by Intel's Core generation, as well as by "shop" vs "field" testing.
127 Comments on Puget Systems Releases CPU Failure Report: AMD CPUs Achieve Higher Failure Rate Than Intel 13th and 14th Generation
As for the time frames, you're right. Let's not forget how long these products have been on the market.
I start to sympathize with lunatics like the Userbarchmenk guy. Maybe, just maybe, what that fool posts is trueAh yes, it's a psyop because AMD does no wrong whatsoever, and a highly-specialized ODM is truly representative of the market at large
www.intel.sg/content/dam/www/public/apac/xa/en/documents/brochures/board-advisors-brochure.pdf
First one people like to "forgive" xd, because it was non-intentional.
Because of second one, people expect something shady from Intel, and don't believe to anything related, and that's why don't believe the article, and expect it was influenced by Intel.
If Intel will start to behave good, and make good CPU's again, people would believe Intel (I am not saying that amd cpus are good either).
But right now we have awful 13/14 gen, and bad ignorant treatment of users, who have problems with failing cpus, and lack of support in general (where new gen of cpu completely makes ur current gen obsolete in order to support future updates and optimizations).
I literally cant buy intel as plug-and-play CPU anymore, then why bother, if u have to tune it anyway, I can buy amd instead. And I dont care if they are possibly failing at the same rate.
If they made the same mistake like 5-7 years ago, during 6-7-8 gen, people would treat it differently, and way more softly.
As far as i am concerned it cuts both ways like it or not. Maybe they ARE both as bad as each other.
I agree with Darmok N Jalad's point above that this has been spun by various media and twisted into something it really wasn't supposed to be. This looks quite clear to me to be a post targeted at their own customers that is specific to the systems they ship. This data is not relevant or applicable outside of their systems and I don't see anything in their post that even suggests they tried to say otherwise.
I'm sick of this constant "but but Intel" and "but but AMD" tug of war, honestly. We have more than enough of it on the forum even without articles like this.