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

[AusWolf]

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

Considering even the title of the article, and Puget's skewed data with their own power limits, whatever they may be, I'm not surprised. It is designed to put fire under the AMD cult.

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.

 

[Why_Me]

Considering even the title of the article, I'm not surprised. It is designed to put fire under the AMD cult.

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.

I live for these articles. I go to this site and I scroll down on the 'recent headlines' to find out what thread is going to be off the hook which is usually any thread with Intel, Nvidia and/or Microsoft in the title. Then I guess how many pages it's up to before I click on it to see how close my guess is.

 

[evernessince]

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.

As you pointed out, people are going to see the headlines 'puget says AMD CPUs fail at 2x the rate'. I can understand wanting to get ahead of an issue but they need to ensure that communications with customers are concise and clear. They simply did not spend enough time explaining the AMD numbers. They mostly left that graph up to the interpretation of the media and they went wild with it.

Now instead of getting ahead of a potential issue they've very likely created concern among their AMD users. Even if their intent was good to begin with, the end result is they've seeded unfounded concern.

 

[Crackong]

AMD CPUs Achieve Higher Failure Rate Than Intel 13th and 14th Generation
Intel 11th Generation failed big time in both performance and relability.

 

[AusWolf]

I live for these articles. I go to this site and I scroll down on the 'recent headlines' to find out what thread is going to be off the hook which is usually any thread with Intel, Nvidia and/or Microsoft in the title. Then I guess how many pages it's up to before I click on it to see how close my guess is.

Yeah, they always get derailed sooner or later. This is the world we live in today, unfortunately. I just don't get why the need to hunt for derailment right in the article itself.

 

[InVasMani]

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

Bit of a slip up though doesn't change a whole lot looks bad either way.

 

[chrcoluk]

These numbers are likely derived from a small sample size hence the inconsistencies. Even their "low" failure rate CPU families are about twice the industry average. They aren't useful for anyone but Puget. You could have easily titled this article "Puget shows 11th gen failure issues" and it would have been just as misleading. The reason we got the headline we got is for the clicks, plain and simple.



Intel's official documentation for the 13th and 14th gen actually recommend against the base line profile.

View attachment 357619

This is because if Intel recommended the base line profile as default they would loose a massive amount of performance. The result is that the baseline profile isn't actually the baseline profile and there really is no singular recommendation from Intel in regards to what's safe. (More info on this in GN's latest video on the topic).

Their original article details why they manually go through and validate their own power settings, it's just that it's been taken out of context by tech news websites.



This data isn't likely to be corroborated because it also implicates the 11th gen as having a failure rate of nearly 2 gens combined, which I have seen no reports of. Puget's failure rates in general are twice the industry average. I said it before but these numbers are highly specific to puget and they aren't intended to demonstrate high AMD failure rates.



I very much doubt this hold true after this recent fiasco. 50% failure rate on your gaming servers will absolutely get you fired when the competition is 1.2%.



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.

Have you have already decided what is going on, what the failure rates are and so forth?

The pugent data being different to others is explained in the article itself, they dont use stock bios settings.

The failure rate for Raptor lake currently is clearly lower than some of these claims, if it was e.g. 50%, the internet discussions would be wildly different to what they are now, e.g. we have one confirmed TPU user with a failed chip out of what I have seen a dozen or so Intel owners, Jay2cents says his i9 might be potentially affected as it has started becoming unstable, as well as buildzoid (although buildzoid's chip was unstable from day 1, and becomes stable when run at Intel spec, so his isnt in the degradation category for me) but none of the other tech youtubers have reported issues.

Other named sources are gaming companies. Of which we dont know really what their sample sizes are either, whether they too small or not as one of the arguments to discredit puget. Their systems are probably running at bios stock settings or close to it.

On Intel baseline, performance, extreme, even in performance and extreme spec, there is bios's out of spec.

Puget also have shown that a previous gen Intel has highest failure rates in their systems, not a AMD CPU.

Where I do agree is that 14th gen being the newest gen, that the bar might well continue to increase as its new, but this of course will also apply to AMD 7000 series.

Its not hard to find failure reports for any product, but usually such reports dont gain much momentum, they put down to unstable RAM or whatever, of course right now there is massive momentum on these Intel issues, which means suddenly anyone who has "any" kind of instability suddenly has a faulty chip.

 

[Nater]

Considering even the title of the article, and Puget's skewed data with their own power limits, whatever they may be, I'm not surprised. It is designed to put fire under the AMD cult.

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.

It's not the first time. They've been roasted before, go look at the comments from their older Ryzen articles. They'd do head to head and neuter the AMD systems with the same 2666Mhz RAM speed and horrible timings as the Intel rigs. Not use PCIe 4.0 vs PCIe 3.0 drives so it's "apples to apples". They had to re-do some of their head to heads because enough of us went "WAIT, that's not how this works". They've always seemed like amateurs to me when it comes to their benchmark reviews, and have learned nothing from people we actually respect the opinions of. (Kyle@HardOCP, Steve@GamersNexus, etc)

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I live for these articles. I go to this site and I scroll down on the 'recent headlines' to find out what thread is going to be off the hook which is usually any thread with Intel, Nvidia and/or Microsoft in the title. Then I guess how many pages it's up to before I click on it to see how close my guess is.

I'm trying to use my brain on this one, but it is Munday. Data analysis is a big chunk of what I do for a living. The biggest misuse is that correlation does not mean causation, and a really nice representational graph:

Granted, that r squared could stand to be a bit higher before I'd consider it accurate.

 

[Sound_Card]

View attachment 357586



View attachment 357587



Nahh, it's your imagination for sure.

This is basically the end of the thread. Everything else after this post in regard to AMD failure rate is cope, hope, and dope.