Puget Systems Releases CPU Failure Report: AMD CPUs Achieve Higher Failure Rate Than Intel 13th and 14th Generation

[thesmokingman]

Puget is clearly full of it. Why even bother dropping your name into the conversation with 2% vs 4% failure rates. You're not even in the same ballpark in this conversation when others are seeing 50% to 100% failure rate. Quick lets redirect to AMD, zomg 2% higher failure rate, no one will notice.

Oh that's right, you're incentivized lmao.

 

[AusWolf]

View attachment 357603
While it's not a lot to go on, what this graph tells me is that Puget Systems had no problems with Canon Lake. They then saw a statistically significant jump (from under 1% to 7.5%) around the time of Rocket Lake, which was really the first Intel generation to go bananas with power to the CPU. In response, Puget Systems probably learned a lesson and altered their power management strategy at the launch of Adler Lake, which appears to have drastically reduced failure rates (7.5% down to 1%). Then, all of a sudden, they saw a noticeable jump in failures with Raptor Lake (1% to 2.5%), despite their power management efforts. So if we're really looking at things, even a "properly tuned" Raptor Lake system is failing at higher than Adler Lake, and these systems are much newer and we're just now starting to see the failures present themselves. The reports are that Raptor Lake starts failing after around 6 months of active service. Adler Lake is all in the field by now and has been in operation far longer than Raptor Lake. That makes the jumps concerning and it is apparently just the beginning. It also means the microcode patch may not mitigate the failures at all since Puget Systems is properly configuring their rigs.

I can't make an assessment on their Ryzen rates because they don't talk at all about volume or how they set them up. I'm already assuming that their Intel volume remains constant from gen 10 to 14.

If your theory is right, and they really started configuring their own power limits after 11th gen, then it makes the data even more skewed and irrelevant.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Correct and the original article wasn't intended to to draw any conclusions on AMD rates. It's the tech Media that is trying to do so for the clicks.

The problem is the PS’s CEO presented incomplete data to begin with, then he tossed AMD in the mix, though at least he says it was not intended to point the finger at AMD. And yes, our click-driven media often out-of-contexts things in such a way as to change the meaning, intent, and conclusions of the OP. They remake the story into something else entirely, something more sensational, and sometimes even purposefully due to special interests. I think PS’s main intent was to assure potential buyers and current system owners that the company is monitoring the failure rates and wanted to ensure owners they configured Raptor Lake rigs by Intel’s guidelines. Had they just excluded AMD from this blog post, we wouldn’t have the uproar, but it probably also wouldn’t have made any news cycles. We kinda do this to ourselves.

 

[AusWolf]

TLDR: This means that the data is not necessarily applicable to gamers, anybody running their motherboard's default settings, or anybody who's overclocking their PC.

That just means that the data is irrelevant. You can't talk about failure rates of CPUs that you first configure to run at your chosen settings instead of the default. It's like a tuning shop providing data on engine failures after they've done some remapping and potentially other modifications. Sure, it's data, but irrelevant regarding the overall reliability of that engine.

 

[thesmokingman]

View attachment 357586



View attachment 357587



Nahh, it's your imagination for sure.

That is kind of a serious conflict of interests there. Why is Delaware not all up on this lol?

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

If your theory is right, and they really started configuring their own power limits after 11th gen, then it makes the data even more skewed and irrelevant.

What I’d like to see is this dataset continue to be updated for the next 6 months. Because of how RapLake is reportedly failing—it’s a time-influenced degradation—the percentage of failures should favor deployed systems. The problem might just be in the beginning phases. I think that gen 14 is going to see the highest spike, since it just takes gen 13 and ramps up even higher. Being newest to the market, we just might need more time for gen 14 failures to present themselves. That 14 already matches 13 is a telling sign, IMO. 13 has been in the wild for a lot longer, and it sounds like 14 was rushed to market.

 

[AusWolf]

What I’d like to see is this dataset continue to be updated for the next 6 months. Because of how RapLake is reportedly failing—it’s a time-influenced degradation—the percentage of failures should favor deployed systems. The problem might just be in the beginning phases. I think that gen 14 is going to see the highest spike, since it just takes gen 13 and ramps up even higher. Being newest to the market, we just might need more time for gen 14 failures to present themselves. That 14 already matches 13 is a telling sign, IMO. 13 has been in the wild for a lot longer, and it sounds like 14 was rushed to market.

What I'd like to see is a complete list of modifications that they do on these CPUs. Stating that they configure them with custom power limits without giving any details makes all the data irrelevant.

As for the time frames, you're right. Let's not forget how long these products have been on the market.

 

[InVasMani]

Now everything makes perfect sense.

Funny how nobody that have posted this article have mentioned this.

Intel damage control pysop. On Intel board of directors no f*ckery here, but we can't make any promises.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Ahh, Puget, the vendor that refused to use Ryzen cpus and when they finally started selling them, their “Configuration assistant “ always ended suggesting an Intel cpu.

Better yet, if their claims are true, how come nobody else experienced such a huge number of issues with their AMD cpus outside Puget?

I will admit, this intel collapse (thank you karma!) is really showing the rabid fanbois, bribed influencers and especially, the white knights which are out in full force doing damage control.

Adding the DOJ investigation on Ngreedia plus the conveniently and sudden delay on their new AI chips, the other side will also be super busy.

Meanwhile …

When I read nonsense like this (I really regret being able to read and write in three languages sometimes), and watch nonsense like this

I start to sympathize with lunatics like the Userbarchmenk guy. Maybe, just maybe, what that fool posts is true

Intel damage control pysop. On Intel board of directors no f*ckery here, but we can't make any promises.

Ah yes, it's a psyop because AMD does no wrong whatsoever, and a highly-specialized ODM is truly representative of the market at large

 

[64K]

Ah yes, it's a psyop because AMD does no wrong whatsoever, and a highly-specialized ODM is truly representative of the market at large

Not accusing you but any Intel, AMD, Nvidia thread about wrongdoing always seems to bring about the "what about what the other guys did wrong?" detour away from the subject at hand. Just because the other guys did wrong in the past isn't a justification for what the current guys are doing wrong. It doesn't lessen the offense. It's just deflection.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Not accusing you but any Intel, AMD, Nvidia thread about wrongdoing always seems to bring about the "what about what the other guys did wrong?" detour away from the subject at hand. Just because the other guys did wrong in the past isn't a justification for what the current guys are doing wrong. It doesn't lessen the offense. It's just deflection.

I feel you brother. None of this contributes to anything - while we're flinging at each other, we're not doing what we should be doing: hold these billionaire corporations accountable

 

[LittleBro]

What I'd like to see is a complete list of modifications that they do on these CPUs. Stating that they configure them with custom power limits without giving any details makes all the data irrelevant.

As for the time frames, you're right. Let's not forget how long these products have been on the market.

Exactly mine point of view. I guess they just turn off all power enhancement features from motherboard makers, set TDP limit and lower max boost. That would ensure lower operating voltages, lower temps and, of course, higher lifetime of the chip.

 

[Bobaganoosh]

That just means that the data is irrelevant. You can't talk about failure rates of CPUs that you first configure to run at your chosen settings instead of the default. It's like a tuning shop providing data on engine failures after they've done some remapping and potentially other modifications. Sure, it's data, but irrelevant regarding the overall reliability of that engine.

It is relevant...to Puget's customers, which is who their article is targeting. Everybody else latching onto this thinking Puget's data is relevant to their gaming PC is not getting what Puget is/does or what their goals as a company are, which was my whole point. They're telling their customers who have bought Intel that they have nothing to worry about because "Puget Systems is Unique". They're not making blanket statements for the whole industry or everybody who's not buying their workstations and I don't even see them as making excuses for Intel, as they say "we HAVE seen the issue".

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Intel damage control pysop. On Intel board of directors no f*ckery here, but we can't make any promises.

He’s on the Board of Advisors, which is a representative group of system builders that I guess offer feedback to Intel and Intel partners. That is WAY different than being on the Board of Directors. You generally don’t see BOD’s blogging. Still might present a conflict of interest, but then again, maybe he’s just fulfilling his role by offering guidance to system builders.

https://www.intel.sg/content/dam/www/public/apac/xa/en/documents/brochures/board-advisors-brochure.pdf

 

[Pepamami]

Ah yes, it's a psyop because AMD does no wrong whatsoever, and a highly-specialized ODM is truly representative of the market at large

Actually yes, in short, we have 2 stereotypes right now: AMD does some thing wrong because of mistake, where Intel does something wrong because of greed.
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.

 

[AusWolf]

Actually yes, in short, we have 2 stereotypes right now: AMD does some thing wrong because of mistake, where Intel does something wrong because of greed.
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).

The problem is that whether something bad happens as a genuine mistake, or out of corporate greed is hard to say, and is hugely up to our interpretation of events. I mean, did Intel purposefully design their latest CPUs to degrade so you'd have to buy a new one even before the next gen is out? I don't think so. Such a move damages company reputation, as other examples have shown, which is not something you'd want or plan for.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

The problem is that whether something bad happens as a genuine mistake, or out of corporate greed is hard to say, and is hugely up to our interpretation of events. I mean, did Intel purposefully design their latest CPUs to degrade so you'd have to buy a new one even before the next gen is out? I don't think so. Such a move damages company reputation, as other examples have shown, which is not something you'd want or plan for.

I don’t think it was malice, but probably negligence and/or a rushed design. Anytime we see a “refresh” product, it’s typically Plan B from the company. It also usually means it’s not as well-planned or executed, like a rebrand with bumped up clocks or moving a SKU down a level. We’ve seen rebrands from all the big players, and I can’t imagine it was anyone’s first choice.

 

[evernessince]

The problem is the PS’s CEO presented incomplete data to begin with, then he tossed AMD in the mix, though at least he says it was not intended to point the finger at AMD. And yes, our click-driven media often out-of-contexts things in such a way as to change the meaning, intent, and conclusions of the OP. They remake the story into something else entirely, something more sensational, and sometimes even purposefully due to special interests. I think PS’s main intent was to assure potential buyers and current system owners that the company is monitoring the failure rates and wanted to ensure owners they configured Raptor Lake rigs by Intel’s guidelines. Had they just excluded AMD from this blog post, we wouldn’t have the uproar, but it probably also wouldn’t have made any news cycles. We kinda do this to ourselves.

Definitely agree, they shouldn't have included AMD numbers to begin with given they weren't the topic of the article and they didn't spend any time explaining them. Particularly of import given puget is using it's own set of BIOS defaults for it's systems which likely varies depending depending on the CPU / CPU family.

 

[Pepamami]

The problem is that whether something bad happens as a genuine mistake, or out of corporate greed is hard to say, and is hugely up to our interpretation of events. I mean, did Intel purposefully design their latest CPUs to degrade so you'd have to buy a new one even before the next gen is out? I don't think so. Such a move damages company reputation, as other examples have shown, which is not something you'd want or plan for.

Its does not matter, its all about having a bad reputation right now, its already damaged by last years.
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.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Love the hypocrisy. Fine when its stated Intel CPU's are failing, another matter when someone dares to say AMD is worse. Just like with Intels problems, can't anyone just take the facts as stated instead of trying to make out it's a stich up job.

As far as i am concerned it cuts both ways like it or not. Maybe they ARE both as bad as each other.

 

[Bobaganoosh]

Definitely agree, they shouldn't have included AMD numbers to begin with given they weren't the topic of the article and they didn't spend any time explaining them. Particularly of import given puget is using it's own set of BIOS defaults for it's systems which likely varies depending depending on the CPU / CPU family.

Being this was an article they posted on their site intended to calm their own customers (both past customers and future customers), it makes total sense they'd include that data. I work with people who buy workstations but know nothing about computers. They see headlines though and go "oh, so Intel has problems, right?" and then Puget feels they have to put an article like this out. They (correctly in my opinion) assumed one of the next questions from their customers would be "ok, well what about AMD?". There's still a lot of "AMD? I'm not sure...all my workstations have been Intel" mindshare out there in the business world. Including the data shows their customers that they track it, catch most of the AMD issues in the shop before they get shipped out, and also proves the point they're trying to make that they are managing the intel situation in a manner that keeps failures at a level consistent with other skus.

Love the hypocrisy. Fine when its stated Intel CPU's are failing, another matter when someone dares to say AMD is worse. Just like with Intels problems, can't anyone just take the facts as stated instead of trying to make out it's a stich up job.

As far as i am concerned it cuts both ways like it or not. Maybe they ARE both as bad as each other.

Again, this is not the point of Puget's article. They indicate that there is an issue with 13th/14th gen CPUs, but then try to calm their own customers (past and future) down by saying that they have a workable solution and their "unique" approach limits failures to a level comparable to other architectures. This was not trying to say to anybody "see, AMD is just as bad", especially not in a general-use or in any use outside of their own.

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.

 

[AusWolf]

Love the hypocrisy. Fine when its stated Intel CPU's are failing, another matter when someone dares to say AMD is worse. Just like with Intels problems, can't anyone just take the facts as stated instead of trying to make out it's a stich up job.

As far as i am concerned it cuts both ways like it or not. Maybe they ARE both as bad as each other.

It's one thing to acknowledge that Intel/AMD messed up with something, and another to point fingers at the other side saying that they're worse. Problems need to be dealt with. Pointing fingers is unnecessary and counterproductive.

 

[Pepamami]

It's one thing to acknowledge that Intel/AMD messed up with something, and another to point fingers at the other side saying that they're worse. Problems need to be dealt with. Pointing fingers is unnecessary and counterproductive.

well if u have nothing else to say, but u can't stay silent any longer.

 

[AusWolf]

Being this was an article they posted on their site intended to calm their own customers (both past customers and future customers), it makes total sense they'd include that data. I work with people who buy workstations but know nothing about computers. They see headlines though and go "oh, so Intel has problems, right?" and then Puget feels they have to put an article like this out. They (correctly in my opinion) assumed one of the next questions from their customers would be "ok, well what about AMD?". There's still a lot of "AMD? I'm not sure...all my workstations have been Intel" mindshare out there in the business world. Including the data shows their customers that they track it, catch most of the AMD issues in the shop before they get shipped out, and also proves the point they're trying to make that they are managing the intel situation in a manner that keeps failures at a level consistent with other skus.


Again, this is not the point of Puget's article. They indicate that there is an issue with 13th/14th gen CPUs, but then try to calm their own customers (past and future) down by saying that they have a workable solution and their "unique" approach limits failures to a level comparable to other architectures. This was not trying to say to anybody "see, AMD is just as bad", especially not in a general-use or in any use outside of their own.

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.

If that's the case, then it's sad that even TPU spins it into a finger-pointing contest, which is considered off-topic within the forum, but apparently fine when an article is written in such manner.

well if u have nothing else to say, but u can't stay silent any longer.

Yeah, I guess. Although, it's a third-party seller, not Intel providing the data now, and then, the media blowing it up.

 

[Why_Me]

Four pages so far of the AMD cult losing their sh1t. This thread didn't disappoint.