The lack of a symptom does not preclude having a disease that's known to be a asmptomatic until a certain point.
What a silly, nonsensical comment! Are you even listening to yourself?
evernessince to the doctor, "
Hey doc! I have no symptoms but, since humans get cancer I might have it one day so you better start chemo now and take out my colon too!"
Or, "
Hey Corsair! My PSU is super quiet but since some Corsairs have been reported to have coil whine, mine might one day too. So give me a new one now."
there will be hundreds of thousands of people with Intel CPUs that have suffered silent degradation
You don't know that. This is you jumping to unfounded conclusions again. It seems you have convinced yourself that everyone who bought one of those Intel processor models not only is affected by the micro-code bug, but their CPU has suffered damage from it.
I have to wonder about the potential of bias here, noting the AMD in your system specs.
MAKE NO MISTAKE - I am NOT defending Intel in any way here. I am simply pointing out the common sense aspect. Unless or until there is a total recall of your specific model number, you cannot simply call up a manufacturer and demand a replacement or refund for the product
you been using for over a year, using the excuse it "might"
one day in the future be damaged by a potential defect you have no evidence is affecting your device!
Okay I take it back. I will defend Intel a little here but quickly add, if the tables were turned and if these were AMD processors, I would pose the same defense.
There are ~ 3 billion (with a "b") transistors in the typical i7 processor. There are millions of lines of micro-code in the processor and associated chipset and BIOS firmware used to control that processor. I do not believe Intel (or AMD if the roles were reversed) is being purposely "deceptive" about being fully transparent about the problem. I believe that (1) they have to
first and foremost "protect" the integrity of code to ensure
security is not, in any way, compromised, (2) they have to protect any proprietary trade "secrets", and (3) due to the shear numbers of transistors and lines of code, they may not actually know the exact structure of the bug, or how to squash it without impacting some other feature, or without introducing some other bug or worse, introducing a security vulnerability.
You have to prove there's an issue to be able to RMA things.
You would think that would be obvious to everyone. I guess not.