Intel Stock Swandives 25% in Friday Trading Spooked by Quarterly Results

[mkppo]

Ok, so let's ignore 13th and 14th field failure rates since they are kinda "new" and unfair to compare with the older ryzen 5000. So ryzen 5000 - the ones you are saying have a pretty low field failure rate, are worse than 12th gen, worse than 10th gen, and almost on par with 11th gen. All of these chips are as old or older than zen 3. So how do you consider 2% a good failure rate, when on top of that they have one of the highest DOA failure rates as well?



How do you know how the systems are run? These are sold as workstations, so im sure they are used more than the average. Still, what difference does that make? That argument applies to both amd and intel chips, neither are used "24/7" (like you claim).


Those multiple server farms are using Intel. Those multiple server farms probably aren't using puget's settings.

The only stats from Europe i've seen is mindfactory that has 13 and 14th gen at 1% return rate. For reference alderlake was at 0.48%.

Why would you just ignore 13th and 14th gen field failures before going on a journey through older CPU's? I mean, that's literally what Intel is having an issue with and everyone is talking about. And it's not 1%

Secondly, see post#141. You're misunderstanding the whole issue which is primarily higher end 13/14 gen's degrading faster when used 24/7 under various loads (hereby accelerating the degradation curve). This chart doesn't represent that. It represents a relatively small sample size of AMD CPU's and differences between them and intel (both in field and shop failures) are largely negligible at best. These are all also running with Puget's settings which we don't know and hence we don't know how they perform either, both of which are huge caveats. But they did mention the rise in field failures for 13th gen so it's a space to watch out for because you're also forgetting a lot of people have just recently realised their "out of video memory" errors are actually that 13900K.

The reason most people aren't bothered by Puget's shop failure rate is because it literally doesn't align with any of the other larger retailers who report extremely low numbers of shop failures (from both camps, mind you). Also they're easy to diagnose, don't really affect the used market and numbers are below 1% from both camps so all is well on that front. The only sore thumb that sticks out is 13900K's rising in returns with time (even for Puget albeit less than everyone else). There have been numerous reports over the past few weeks of RPL returns being higher than prior gens and AMD from major European retailers. Alza.sk exposes their returns rate in their website and look at the 13900K being abnormally high at 5%. Then there's all these devs and farms who did some heavy lifting with these CPU's and they died. And judging by a 2x rise in July field failures for 13th gen for Puget, this graph will probably look different in a few months.

 

[JustBenching]

Why would you just ignore 13th and 14th gen field failures before going on a journey through older CPU's? I mean, that's literally what Intel is having an issue with and everyone is talking about. And it's not 1%

Because field failure rates on these 2 are lower than zen 3, and if I had compared them youd say it's not fair cause zen 3 is 4 years old.

Secondly, see post#141. You're misunderstanding the whole issue which is primarily higher end 13/14 gen's degrading faster when used 24/7 under various loads (hereby accelerating the degradation curve). This chart doesn't represent that. It represents a relatively small sample size of AMD CPU's and differences between them and intel (both in field and shop failures) are largely negligible at best. These are all also running with Puget's settings which we don't know and hence we don't know how they perform either, both of which are huge caveats. But they did mention the rise in field failures for 13th gen so it's a space to watch out for because you're also forgetting a lot of people have just recently realised their "out of video memory" errors are actually that 13900K.

Of course we know puget's settings, they have them on all of their reviews. They are using both intel and amd defaults. 253w PL2 / 307a / 125w pl1 / 56 TAU.

The reason most people aren't bothered by Puget's shop failure rate is because it literally doesn't align with any of the other larger retailers who report extremely low numbers of shop failures (from both camps, mind you). Also they're easy to diagnose, don't really affect the used market and numbers are below 1% from both camps so all is well on that front. The only sore thumb that sticks out is 13900K's rising in returns with time (even for Puget albeit less than everyone else). There have been numerous reports over the past few weeks of RPL returns being higher than prior gens and AMD from major European retailers. Alza.sk exposes their returns rate in their website and look at the 13900K being abnormally high at 5%. Then there's all these devs and farms who did some heavy lifting with these CPU's and they died. And judging by a 2x rise in July field failures for 13th gen for Puget, this graph will probably look different in a few months.

How are shop failure rates below 1%? Are we seeing the same graph? Zen 4 is above 4%.

There is a campaign against FSR especially. Maybe someone doesn't want to have a repeat of FreeSync.

As for Tim "DLSS for life", as you can see in the thumbnail used in HU video, he is using the Nvidia goggles to check FSR's quality in more detail.

Also Hardware Unboxed is probably the only, or at least one of the few from the big YouTube tech channels that knows nothing about Intel problems this period. Instead they rushed to make a video about AMD's Zen 5 having problems to help with Intel's damage control. They invented "issues" with Zen 5 THE SAME day 9000 series was delayed.
They didn't done the same about the latest news about Nvidia's Blackwell having a design flaw. No, they are silent there.

In my opinion, HU became as big as it was necessary to start getting gifts from big corporations. Well, if Intel's expenditure cuts affects them, we might start seeing videos about the advantages of FSR over XeSS.

People should stop posting Hardware Unboxed as one of the objective channels. They are NOT.
The whole internet talks about Intel. They are silent.
There is a rumor about AMD. They rush to make a video.
There is a rumor about Nvidia Blackwell. Again, silence.

JMO always.

Hub was one of the few channels that didn't cover the x3d burning and taking their mobos alongside them.

And contrary to your claims, they have addressed the intel issue multiple times on their podcast.

 

[john_]

I think all the OEMs need to drop em like a hot potato and intel needs to reap what they sow! I just watched this and holy crapola! Intel is weak af and pat needs to be taken out back...

Looking at OEMs trying to promote Qualcomm, I would say that they are preparing already in case intel fails miserably in the next few years.

ARC graphics was the biggest money pit for them... why bother doing that when we have amd/nvidia gpus that are allready solidified in the market!?

There are cases where GPUs are becoming the main compute processor with CPUs becoming just a necessary control chip that orchestrates the system while also running the OS. A company producing CPUs without strong iGPU/discrete GPU to accompany those CPUs is dead. AMD and Nvidia can have their own platform in the future with GPUs communicating with the CPU over proprietary busses living Intel without GPUs at all. How do you think Intel killed SiS, VIA and Nvidia's chipset division? With a proprietary bus to the CPU that they refused to license to others.

 

[mkppo]

Because field failure rates on these 2 are lower than zen 3, and if I had compared them youd say it's not fair cause zen 3 is 4 years old.


Of course we know puget's settings, they have them on all of their reviews. They are using both intel and amd defaults. 253w PL2 / 307a / 125w pl1 / 56 TAU.


How are shop failure rates below 1%? Are we seeing the same graph? Zen 4 is above 4%.


Hub was one of the few channels that didn't cover the x3d burning and taking their cpus alongside them.

And contrary to your claims, they have addressed the intel issue multiple times on their podcast.

But you miss the point about field failures for 13/14th being unrepresentative (in a good way) because they've only recently seen an uptick in these. And Zen 4 is 4x lower than 13900K there.

Puget themselves stated (when they made these announcements) that they use conservative settings in their BIOS, what reviews are you referring to?

I was talking about shop failure rates from larger retailers. There's a lot of other data out there you see. I even mentioned one to notice field failures for 13900K which you have seemed to glossed over.

 

[JustBenching]

ut you miss the point about field failures for 13/14th being unrepresentative (in a good way) because they've only recently seen an uptick in these. And Zen 4 is 4x lower than 13900K there.

So you are basically saying that because zen 4 fail to even make it past the shop into the field, that's what, a good thing? I don't want to put words in your mouth so please, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that CPUs that fail in a few days or a week are signs of higher quality control than CPUs that fail after 6 months or a couple of years? Cause that's what's happening according to puget's bench. AMD ships such a high amount of highly problematic zen 4 chips that they don't even make it out of the door. They fail within a few days in their stress test. Intel ships cpus that are working fine for the first couple of years.

Puget themselves stated (when they made these announcements) that they use conservative settings in their BIOS, what reviews are you referring to?

Puget does CPU reviews as well. In those reviews they clearly state the settings they are using.

 

[john_]

Hub was one of the few channels that didn't cover the x3d burning and taking their mobos alongside them.

And contrary to your claims, they have addressed the intel issue multiple times on their podcast.

The whole X3D problem lasted a short period of time, like a week or two and it was in a period where HUB was more neutral. They have changed the last year.

A podcast is where you can hide things. A video specifically about a rumor, is what you do when you need to escalate that rumor to a fact.

 

[JustBenching]

The whole X3D problem lasted a short period of time, like a week or two and it was in a period where HUB was more neutral. They have changed the last year.

A podcast is where you can hide things. A video specifically about a rumor, is what you do when you need to escalate that rumor to a fact.

Yes, of course.

 

[john_]

Yes, of course.

Keep putting laughing smiles. This is the only "argument" you have. Every time you have difficulties to write something that could be at least be confused with an effort to build an argument, you reply with this

Thanks for keep remind me to not reply to you even when you quote me.

 

[JustBenching]

Your argument is hub was neutral and that's why they didn't cover the amd chips burning themselves. I'm not responding to you cause when your definition of neutrality is hiding the amd issues then there isn't anything to really argue. You are too far gone into fanboy territory.

I mean just think about what you said. Hub were NEUTRAL that's why they didn't cover the burning CPUs.

So they are neutral now too, that's why they don't cover the intel issues (which they are, but let's ignore that). There you go.

 

[Vayra86]

Turns out jacked up AI/tech products & layoffs don't go so well hand in hand, who'd have thunk it

Don't worry though someone will make money off of this opportunity, they always do on Wall Street

The AI bubble hasn't even burst yet, imagine that. That's still inflating, because 'AI doesn't care' about the rest of the world. Its just too brilliant. All I see is this

 

[john_]

Your argument is hub was neutral and that's why they didn't cover the amd chips burning themselves. I'm not responding to you cause when your definition of neutrality is hiding the amd issues then there isn't anything to really argue. You are too far gone into fanboy territory.

I mean just think about what you said. Hub were NEUTRAL that's why they didn't cover the burning CPUs.

So they are neutral now too, that's why they don't cover the intel issues (which they are, but let's ignore that). There you go.

Oh, what an argument. Throwing the ball in the stands as usual.

The whole thing about X3D lasted a week. AMD fixed it when it got in the news, so HUB and others didn't had to do much. Being more neutral means you don't feel the need to rush to make a video about it to throw the blame. You wait a few days and see what is happening and if it is fixable, before rushing to make a video about it.

Intel's problems are 2 years old as it seems. Things started heating up this year. Everyone is talking about how badly the situation is and how badly intel is reacting to it.
HUB is silent the last month that everyone is talking about it. Instead they rushed to do a video about "Zen 5 issues" based on a rumor immediately after that rumor got out. They didn't waited at all.

I don't expect you to publicly acknowledge the clear difference between the two situations. You NEVER do conversations here. You only try to pass your narrative and when you fail and most times you do, you just throw a laughing smile under the other's person reply. It's just what you do.

Spoiler

And you will do it again here.

 

[JustBenching]

Yeah, being neutral means youll not make a video to keep your viewers informed, youll just keep them in the dark and wait to see how many get their cpus and mobos burned. That's definitely the definition of neutrality.

 

[john_]

The AI bubble hasn't even burst yet, imagine that. That's still inflating, because 'AI doesn't care' about the rest of the world. Its just too brilliant. All I see is this

It will burst the first time Nvidia posts financial results that wouldn't be shining more than the Sun.

 

[Hecate91]

So you are basically saying that because zen 4 fail to even make it past the shop into the field, that's what, a good thing? I don't want to put words in your mouth so please, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that CPUs that fail in a few days or a week are signs of higher quality control than CPUs that fail after 6 months or a couple of years? Cause that's what's happening according to puget's bench. AMD ships such a high amount of highly problematic zen 4 chips that they don't even make it out of the door. They fail within a few days in their stress test. Intel ships cpus that are working fine for the first couple of years.


Puget does CPU reviews as well. In those reviews they clearly state the settings they are using.

Except Puget doesn't publish numbers on how many AMD 5000 or 7000 cpu's are failing, or what cpu's they are using in their graphs. Even with the settings Puget systems uses for their Intel cpu's there is still an increase in failures yet you keep ignoring that graph.
The hilarious thing is Puget claims they don't want to deflect the issue by bringing up AMD, yet they are obviously trying to do damage control for Intel.
If AMD cpu's failing was such a massive problem then it would be in the news. And a cpu having issues out of the box is much better than one having issues a few years later, having issues means either the company or someone doing a DIY system can get the cpu replaced right away, well maybe not if someone bought an Intel cpu lol.
Also Intel knew they were having issues 2 years ago, then quietly changed their reddit post to admitting they knew since 2022, so thats being very scummy of them not even being transparent on when the issues started to happen, so I doubt Intel didn't know of these Raptor lake failures. The handing of this whole situation has been atrocious yet you're still defending Intel while trying to insist AMD is somehow worse here when any issues they had were quickly resolved because AMD actually worked to get things fixed instead of trying to shift the blame while denying RMA's like Intel has been doing.

Yeah, being neutral means youll not make a video to keep your viewers informed, youll just keep them in the dark and wait to see how many get their cpus and mobos burned. That's definitely the definition of neutrality.

That isn't what neutral is, being neutral means they would report objectively on issues from both team blue and team red, HUB rushed to make a video on AMD delaying the 9000 series with all kinds of theories on why they delayed, yet hasn't done any videos on the whole Intel 13th & 14th gen issues.

 

[john_]

Yeah, being neutral means youll not make a video to keep your viewers informed, youll just keep them in the dark and wait to see how many get their cpus and mobos burned. That's definitely the definition of neutrality.

So, why HUB hasn't done a video about Intel degradation and instability problems for a month? No video to inform about what Intel is saying, about warranty period and extension.

Please. Go and troll at wccftech. Taking someone's post and distorting it's meaning isn't an argument.

 

[JustBenching]

So, why HUB hasn't done a video about Intel degradation and instability problems for a month? No video to inform about what Intel is saying, about warranty period and extension.

But they have. You claiming they haven't doesn't make it true. They featured multiple questions on multiple podcasts about the issue.

But according to your own argument, they haven't done a video cause they are neutral.

Except Puget doesn't publish numbers on how many AMD 5000 or 7000 cpu's are failing

You mean as an absolute number? Doesn't really matter, % is what matters.

Even with the settings Puget systems uses for their Intel cpu's there is still an increase in failures yet you keep ignoring that graph.

Yes, 13th and 14th gen fail at an increased rate compared to 12th. Still holding well below zen 3 and zen 4 though.

The hilarious thing is Puget claims they don't want to deflect the issue by bringing up AMD, yet they are obviously trying to do damage control for Intel.

So posting their data is damage control? They should have hidden the data is what you are suggesting?

If AMD cpu's failing was such a massive problem then it would be in the news.

They don't have the marketshare Intel has, neither is everyone using the same settings as puget. You are taking Puget's numbers out of context. All PUGET is saying is that, as long as you are using the Intel and AMD default settings, Intel are less prone to fail than amd. If you are not using the default settings all bets are off.

And a cpu having issues out of the box is much better than one having issues a few years later, having issues means either the company or someone doing a DIY system can get the cpu replaced right away, well maybe not if someone bought an Intel cpu lol.

That sounds correct at first read - but.

Company A) 4% of their CPUs are failing within a day, 0.3% are failing the next 3 years

Company B) 1% of their CPUs are failing within a day, 1% fail in the next 3 years

You cannot possible suggest that company A has better quality controls cause their cpus fail much quicker. Failing much quicker is the opposite of good quality control.

And see, you are still spreading your missinformation about Intel denying RMAs. You are not here to argue the facts, you are here to shit on Intel. That's why im doing what im doing, specifically because of people like you.

while denying RMA's like Intel has been doing.

Yep, let keep making up stuff, why not.

 

[john_]

But they have. You claiming they haven't doesn't make it true. They featured multiple questions on multiple podcasts about the issue.

But according to your own argument, they haven't done a video cause they are neutral.

You keep distorting what the other person said. You just can't stop doing it, can you?
Read again what I posted. Fix your reply without distorting what I posted already.

 

[phanbuey]

So, why HUB hasn't done a video about Intel degradation and instability problems for a month? No video to inform about what Intel is saying, about warranty period and extension.

Please. Go and troll at wccftech. Taking someone's post and distorting it's meaning isn't an argument.

They are a hardware review site, speculating on internet rumors <> reviewing hardware. They didn't make an x3d exploding video either - they talk about it on their Q&A but it's not what the channel is about.

I have a hard time calling them anti-AMD when:

Insane Gaming Efficiency! AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Benchmark & Review (youtube.com)

And they have always tuned their ram at 6000 cl30 and disabled VBS/mem integrity, had to be basically bullied to run intel at a higher spec. Their AMD reviews are consistently more favorable than any other hardware review channel.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Hence why I said that when it comes to innovation, you must keep that gas pedal floored. Intel let off the gas for many years and these are the results.

And the thing about it is, Intel hired Jim Keller to create a new CPU architecture, namely Royal Core. One of the main stars of Royal Core was something called "Rentable Units" that was supposed to replace Hyperthreading. However, as I alluded to in a prior post and how you alluded to as well, there was a lot of outdated and bloated bureaucracy, and that led to a lot of internal fighting, backstabbing, and sabotage that eventually led to Jim Keller leaving Intel far before Royal Core was anywhere close to being complete. It was said that inside the halls of Intel, many employees looked at Jim Keller, despite his many accolades, as an outsider. They saw him as more of an enemy than someone who could save Intel.

And now we have the fruits of that debacle.

I wonder if we are going to see Intel re-embrace this Royal core tech, now that both the alder lake cores and meteor lake are running into problems..

I disagree. While ARM is rather new in the PC space, it's more than established in the mobile market. And with the advent of Apple's M-Series of chips, it showed that ARM, despite it being a low-power core, could stand toe-to-toe with their more power-hungry cousins while figuratively sipping the power.

I agree that ARM is well established in mobile, but I dont see this as intel's downfall. ARM dominated mobile over a decade ago, it wouldnt be causing issues now. Same with apple, They switched to ARM nearly 4 years ago, it wouldn't be causing issues for intel now. besides, apples as a percentage of systems sold are still relatively low.

I certainly see ARM making issues for intel in the future when the windows devices finally get sorted out, but right now intel is still raking in billions in client sales. Leading up to this point is more the bureaucratic nightmare and complacency.

There is a campaign against FSR especially. Maybe someone doesn't want to have a repeat of FreeSync.

As for Tim "DLSS for life", as you can see in the thumbnail used in HU video, he is using the Nvidia goggles to check FSR's quality in more detail.

Also Hardware Unboxed is probably the only, or at least one of the few from the big YouTube tech channels that knows nothing about Intel problems this period. Instead they rushed to make a video about AMD's Zen 5 having problems to help with Intel's damage control. They invented "issues" with Zen 5 THE SAME day 9000 series was delayed.
They didn't done the same about the latest news about Nvidia's Blackwell having a design flaw. No, they are silent there.

In my opinion, HU became as big as it was necessary to start getting gifts from big corporations. Well, if Intel's expenditure cuts affects them, we might start seeing videos about the advantages of FSR over XeSS.

People should stop posting Hardware Unboxed as one of the objective channels. They are NOT.
The whole internet talks about Intel. They are silent.
There is a rumor about AMD. They rush to make a video.
There is a rumor about Nvidia Blackwell. Again, silence.

JMO always.

Oh please. HU and Techspot have been accused of being Intel shills, AMD shills, nvidia shills, apple shills, android shills, ARM shills, the list goes on. They have a certain way of angering fanbois.

In reality: FSR sucks compared to DLSS. Unlike freesync, FSR is still nowhere near as competent or feature rich as DLSS, and nvidia is still actively investing in DLSS to a point that AMD cannot keep up. People onf orums actively complain about FSR's image quality. They did the same to DLSS, and nvidis worked on improving it. FSR has not improved anywhere near as fast, nor as well.

 

[phanbuey]

Oh please. HU and Techspot have been accused of being Intel shills, AMD shills, nvidia shills, apple shills, android shills, ARM shills, the list goes on. They have a certain way of angering fanbois.

In reality: FSR sucks compared to DLSS. Unlike freesync, FSR is still nowhere near as competent or feature rich as DLSS, and nvidia is still actively investing in DLSS to a point that AMD cannot keep up. People onf orums actively complain about FSR's image quality. They did the same to DLSS, and nvidis worked on improving it. FSR has not improved anywhere near as fast, nor as well.

I have 100% accused them of being AMD shills

 

[Hecate91]

You mean as an absolute number? Doesn't really matter, % is what matters.

The sample size does matter.

Yes, 13th and 14th gen fail at an increased rate compared to 12th. Still holding well below zen 3 and zen 4 though.

Except Puget system sells more Intel systems than AMD, any AMD system they sell would skew the data into making the AMD failures look worse.

So posting their data is damage control? They should have hidden the data is what you are suggesting?

Puget is shifting the focus away from the Intel issues and insisting AMD is worse, that is very suspicious for a company claiming they do better QA than most other system integrators. A company going "BUT AMD!!!!!!!111" does very little to instill confidence especially when Intel is doing all sorts of damage control to diminish the severity of the situation.

They don't have the marketshare Intel has, neither is everyone using the same settings as puget. You are taking Puget's numbers out of context. All PUGET is saying is that, as long as you are using the Intel and AMD default settings, Intel are less prone to fail than amd. If you are not using the default settings all bets are off.

Of course AMD doesn't have the marketshare, so that means the tech press is less likely to defend them, just look how every tech youtuber rushed to say how terrible AMD is when their X3D issues were quickly fixed.
And the issue is most people are going to use the default settings, you keep ignoring the fact of even with changed settings intel cpus are still degrading, even Puget system admits it with higher than normal failure rates on 13th and 14th gen.

That sounds correct at first read - but.

Company A) 4% of their CPUs are failing within a day, 0.3% are failing the next 3 years

Company B) 1% of their CPUs are failing within a day, 1% fail in the next 3 years

You cannot possible suggest that company A has better quality controls cause their cpus fail much quicker. Failing much quicker is the opposite of good quality control.

And see, you are still spreading your missinformation about Intel denying RMAs. You are not here to argue the facts, you are here to shit on Intel. That's why im doing what im doing, specifically because of people like you.

Company A has better overall QA if less of their CPU's are failing over a longer period of time, its simple as that, no need to try gaslighting over Intel cpus literally killing themselves even when ran at the base spec that Intel had approved.
It isn't misinformation, its what several sites have reported on, Intel has been denying RMA's since 2023 according to Alderon Games and some other game companies, so Intel had to have known there was something wrong then.
When Intel denies RMA's and claims cpus are fake most people would stop there instead of fighting Intel trying to get out of fixing the problem, Intel isn't free from blame when their AI thing messes up. Maybe they should have people checking serial numbers instead, unless Intel fired most of their CS team responsible for handling RMA requests.

Yep, let keep making up stuff, why not.

It isn't making stuff up, you keep on denying it's happening lol.

 

[Darkholm]

Who said it will be boring and long 2 weeks for delaying Zen5 launch

 

[JustBenching]

The sample size does matter.

Except Puget system sells more Intel systems than AMD, any AMD system they sell would skew the data into making the AMD failures look worse.

How do you know what it sells more? What difference does it make? You are basically saying they are lying? Say it straight, don't dance around.

Puget is shifting the focus away from the Intel issues and insisting AMD is worse, that is very suspicious for a company claiming they do better QA than most other system integrators. A company going "BUT AMD!!!!!!!111" does very little to instill confidence especially when Intel is doing all sorts of damage control to diminish the severity of the situation.

They didn't go "BUT AMD" anything. They just published their data. You don't like their data, that's why you are blaming them.

Of course AMD doesn't have the marketshare, so that means the tech press is less likely to defend them

Nonono, amd does have the mindshare of the angry mob. The vocal minority, the people that watch techtube etc are 99% amd. A walk through /r intel and /r amd shows it clearly, amd has over twice the reddit users even though it has only a fraction of the sales of intel. Also check the first 30 Intel threads on /r intel, the majority of them are negative towards Intel. Now check the top 30 on /r amd. None of them are. In fact, due to a huge number of downvotes, whenever anyone posts something negative about AMD they are forced to delete it. Happened 3 times with the HUB videos criticising amd's XT benchmarks like 3-4 weeks ago.


It is a fact you angry anti intel / nvidia brigade are the vast majority and you skew content to cater to your needs, by blaming everyone that disagrees as being paid by Intel / nvidia. You and the other guy already done it twice in this thread alone. Just the last 2 days I've heard people saying Puget is being paid by Intel, adobe is being paid by intel, epic is being paid by intel, hub is being paid by intel, and it goes on and on.

Company A has better overall QA if less of their CPU's are failing over a longer period of time, its simple as that, no need to try gaslighting over Intel cpus literally killing themselves even when ran at the base spec that Intel had approved.
It isn't misinformation, its what several sites have reported on, Intel has been denying RMA's since 2023 according to Alderon Games and some other game companies, so Intel had to have known there was something wrong then.
When Intel denies RMA's and claims cpus are fake most people would stop there instead of fighting Intel trying to get out of fixing the problem, Intel isn't free from blame when their AI thing messes up. Maybe they should have people checking serial numbers instead, unless Intel fired most of their CS team responsible for handling RMA requests.

Company A that sells 3 times as many CPUs that fail doesn't have better quality control by the very definition of what quality control is. But again, just because it's amd on the losing side you won't acknowledge it. It's fine, im used to it, sure, 5% failure rate is better than 2%. Whatever floats your boat chief.

It isn't making stuff up, you keep on denying it's happening lol.

Post those cases then. Go ahead

@AusWolf See you said on the other thread "of course Intel honors RMAs, who said they don't". Oh boy, plenty of people, trust me

 

[john_]

They are a hardware review site, speculating on internet rumors <> reviewing hardware. They didn't make an x3d exploding video either - they talk about it on their Q&A but it's not what the channel is about.

I have a hard time calling them anti-AMD when:
View attachment 357474

Insane Gaming Efficiency! AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Benchmark & Review (youtube.com)

And they have always tuned their ram at 6000 cl30 and disabled VBS/mem integrity, had to be basically bullied to run intel at a higher spec. Their AMD reviews are consistently more favorable than any other hardware review channel.

So they made a video where their findings are the same as everybody's else about the performance of 7800X3D in games. Wow....the shock!!! They must be AMD shills! What else? Have they done a video where RTX 4090 wins all benchmarks?

They rushed to make a video about "Zen 5 having issues". They didn't hide that into a podcast or something. They did a video about it. They don't talk about Intel issues. Their last video was 1 month ago about it.
For one whole month they can only spot AMD's problems with their product naming, their benchmarks and.... Zen 5. Intel is fine.

Consider me shocked if they review Intel's patch first, have an exclusivity on that patch and come to the conclusion that "voltages are fine, everything seems to be fixed, extended warranty will cover you, all problems are in the rear mirror now".

 

[kapone32]

There is never a high enough resolution and refresh, once you have money to spend you would always want something better. 4K 240hz is king of the hill now, but in a few years it will be 8K 240hz.

There is a campaign against FSR especially. Maybe someone doesn't want to have a repeat of FreeSync.

As for Tim "DLSS for life", as you can see in the thumbnail used in HU video, he is using the Nvidia goggles to check FSR's quality in more detail.

Also Hardware Unboxed is probably the only, or at least one of the few from the big YouTube tech channels that knows nothing about Intel problems this period. Instead they rushed to make a video about AMD's Zen 5 having problems to help with Intel's damage control. They invented "issues" with Zen 5 THE SAME day 9000 series was delayed.
They didn't done the same about the latest news about Nvidia's Blackwell having a design flaw. No, they are silent there.

In my opinion, HU became as big as it was necessary to start getting gifts from big corporations. Well, if Intel's expenditure cuts affects them, we might start seeing videos about the advantages of FSR over XeSS.

People should stop posting Hardware Unboxed as one of the objective channels. They are NOT.
The whole internet talks about Intel. They are silent.
There is a rumor about AMD. They rush to make a video.
There is a rumor about Nvidia Blackwell. Again, silence.

JMO always.

Nothing smells worse about HU was his fly fishing Nvidia abandonment story. All of sudden DLSS was the cat's meow.

In terms of this thread I am pretty sure Brian form Tech Yes City exposed Intel issues with 11th gen and now is not holding back on 14th gen. All I know is a 25%+ drop in stock price must have wreaked havoc on a bunch of Investment portfolios. Intel is a very popular stock to hold. I am sure there are those on media channels calling for a strong buy position on Intel.