Law Firm Investigates Class Action Suit Over Intel's Unstable 13th/14th Gen CPUs

[JustBenching]

I said you're omitting stuff because you are. Look, no one has the time to summarize every case of denied RMA and this is really wasting everyone's time. Also, no idea why you are going on a 20 year old tangent, there's literally no point you're making there. I'll quote one, there's a post by jerubedo in reddit two days ago (which i think is your first point?) outlining intel identifying both his CPU's as tray CPU's (which Intel should cover anyway but decided not to) as opposed to boxed even though he provided serial numbers, pictures and all that and were bought from Microcenter and Amazon so they definitely weren't tray. Then, after Intel identified these incorrectly as tray CPU's followed up with this quote: "However, if the products fail the validation process, the units will be retained and confiscated, and no replacements or refunds will be provided"

There are a few issues. First, most retailers will not offer refunds in the US months after purchase. He got lucky, not everyone is. And you have to understand that refunds are very much something one might want in this case. Then there's the case of Intel being incorrect and has nothing to do with thermal paste hiding the serial number like you quote. He mentioned the TIM being on the side and is absolutely not a case of denying RMA. Intel also quoted incorrect SN's for his CPU's and a whole heap of stuff happened which I won't get into but you get the picture. The process was a whole heap of mess and the retailers bailed him out (when they weren't obliged to).

The problem is, you are not the designated RMA defender for Intel. There WILL be failed RMA cases, it would happen to anyone and seems very much the case that Intel messed it up here and will mess up in the future as well. Does that mean they are denying it to everyone? No. But you cant individually defend every single case and say "oh no Intel was right". In many cases, they weren't. And that's fine.

Most retailers will not offer refunds in the EU either, because they aren't supposed to. Not even by law. Only unless the product is RMAed twice are you allowed to ask for one. This has nothing to do with Intel, it's just what the law is.

Of course there will be failed RMAs just as there are with every single company. Unless intel rejects RMAs (RMAs that should have gone through, obviously) at a higher rate than other companies I don't see what the point of spamming "intel rejects rmas "on every thread on every forum is. Cause i've read that comment, I don't even know how many times. More than 3 just today just in this forum.

Your argument of 'what applies to any other product applies to Intel as well'? If that's your stance, sure and we'll agree to disagree, because others aren't designing chips that are failing. I think otherwise; if you've designed a product that lasts much less than what it should, you shouldn't just put out a relatively useless public statement of warranty extension that doesn't affect most of their users. You should disclose batch numbers affected by oxidisation, you should put out a tool that actually tests for stability (Intel's tool is laughably useless as it shows CPU's are stable when they're not) and whenever that test fails, there should be an RMA issued regardless of whether the CPU is tray or boxed. There's other stuff they can do but these at the bare minimum would make it right. The two year extension does next to nothing.

A product failing after the warranty expires is a product that lasted as much as it should. Unless we mean something different by "should", im not sure what your point is. If a product SHOULD last longer than it's warranty then shouldn't it also be covered by a lengthier warranty? For example there are PSU manafacturers that have 10 year warranties. So sure, I expect one such PSU should last for 10 years.

They extended the warranty and a patch is on the way for this month. I don't know why you feel this is next to nothing.

 

[mkppo]

Most retailers will not offer refunds in the EU either, because they aren't supposed to. Not even by law. Only unless the product is RMAed twice are you allowed to ask for one. This has nothing to do with Intel, it's just what the law is.

Of course there will be failed RMAs just as there are with every single company. Unless intel rejects RMAs (RMAs that should have gone through, obviously) at a higher rate than other companies I don't see what the point of spamming "intel rejects rmas "on every thread on every forum is. Cause i've read that comment, I don't even know how many times. More than 3 just today just in this forum.


A product failing after the warranty expires is a product that lasted as much as it should. Unless we mean something different by "should", im not sure what your point is. If a product SHOULD last longer than it's warranty then shouldn't it also be covered by a lengthier warranty? For example there are PSU manafacturers that have 10 year warranties. So sure, I expect one such PSU should last for 10 years.

They extended the warranty and a patch is on the way for this month. I don't know why you feel this is next to nothing.

You fail to understand the basic issue: what you think intel should be doing is different from what most others think they should be doing.

This is the last time I will say it regardless of your response because either you don't get it or are just skirting around the bushes. A pre-built system doesn't have the three year warranty with most having one year in NA. These customers are screwed and Intel hasn't done anything to rectify that. This is wrong. Because the CPU hasn't lasted as long as it should. And the two year extension does nothing for the majority of their customers.

 

[Hecate91]

Of course there will be failed RMAs just as there are with every single company. Unless intel rejects RMAs (RMAs that should have gone through, obviously) at a higher rate than other companies I don't see what the point of spamming "intel rejects rmas "on every thread on every forum is. Cause i've read that comment, I don't even know how many times. More than 3 just today just in this forum.

The fact is Intel have been refusing RMAs and no it doesn't need to be higher than other companies to be a valid point, Intel shouldn't be refusing RMAs or be making it difficult for customers to have a successful RMA, when Intel claims a cpu is fake or threatens to confiscate a cpu that is refusing an RMA, its already enough for most people to disassemble their system to remove the CPU then possibly be without a pc for a week.

A product failing after the warranty expires is a product that lasted as much as it should. Unless we mean something different by "should", im not sure what your point is. If a product SHOULD last longer than it's warranty then shouldn't it also be covered by a lengthier warranty? For example there are PSU manafacturers that have 10 year warranties. So sure, I expect one such PSU should last for 10 years.

They extended the warranty and a patch is on the way for this month. I don't know why you feel this is next to nothing.

So an Intel cpu only lasting for 3 years is as long as a cpu should last? Are you serious?
The only reason Intel extended the warranty is because they had to after the media started to report on 13th and 14th gen degradation and failures, the warranty extension is nice sounding PR while who knows if Intel will even honor their warranty, when Intel should have offered a full recall on x700 and x900 cpu's with a tool to test if the cpu has been degraded.
A warranty extension is nothing for most people who have an OEM system or bought a workstation or gaming pc from an SI.

 

[JustBenching]

The fact is Intel have been refusing RMAs and no it doesn't need to be higher than other companies to be a valid point, Intel shouldn't be refusing RMAs or be making it difficult for customers to have a successful RMA, when Intel claims a cpu is fake or threatens to confiscate a cpu that is making it difficult, its already enough for most people to disassemble their system to remove the CPU then possibly be without a pc for a week.

Yes, intel is refusing rmas left right and center. Sorry, I can't reason against hatred. No amount of facts will convince you otherwise, so let's go with that, intel is refusing rmas. Which Intel chip do you happen to have?

So an Intel cpu only lasting for 3 years is as long as a cpu should last? Are you serious?
The only reason Intel extended the warranty is because they had to after the media started to report on 13th and 14th gen degradation and failures, the warranty extension is nice sounding PR while who knows if Intel will even honor their warranty, when Intel should have offered a full recall on x700 and x900 cpu's with a tool to test if the cpu has been degraded.
A warranty extension is nothing for most people who have an OEM system or bought a workstation or gaming pc from an SI.

That's just your claim based on nothing but your feelings. I think the only reason Intel extended the warranty is because they are moral upstanding citizens and they really love and care about their customers. Until either one of us has actual evidence of our respective claims both of our claims are just a joke.

Don't worry, Intel already announced that an extension is on the works for tray and oems as well. Not that that will appease you OF COURSE, youll find some other reason to hate on intel, but hey, at least they are trying.

 

[mahirzukic2]

It's very hard to prove that there is an issue over whole product release at all with certainty. Sure, Intel has lots if data, OEM partners have lots if data, but tech journalists, users? We have anecdotal data. People are reporting issues in forums? Every product has issues! When is too much?

Intel might target just that uncertainty. After the microcode fix there will be a long period when all issues will be questioned - was the damage done before microcode fix, and therefore irrelevant? Is it just normal CPU abuse due to overclocking? And after a couple of months it will be irrelevant, all the marketing will focus on upcoming product, best ever in all areas, even in reliability!

There is this thing in law called DISCOVERY. It is a process in which you get to request the data and knowledge which a company (in this case Intel) or its employees knew which you can use yourself in court. If the company (in this case Intel) doesn't comply, the lawyers request a subpoena and the court orders the company (in this case Intel) to hand over the (incriminating) data.
So "Intel targeting that uncertainty", give me a break. If there is even a sliver of doubt about the QA process being skimped over which would result in these issues, be sure that there would be a paper trail inside of company confirming that, and also be sure that lawyers WILL FIND IT during the discovery process.

 

[Bwaze]

There is this thing in law called DISCOVERY. It is a process in which you get to request the data and knowledge which a company (in this case Intel) or its employees knew which you can use yourself in court. If the company (in this case Intel) doesn't comply, the lawyers request a subpoena and the court orders the company (in this case Intel) to hand over the (incriminating) data.
So "Intel targeting that uncertainty", give me a break. If there is even a sliver of doubt about the QA process being skimped over which would result in these issues, be sure that there would be a paper trail inside of company confirming that, and also be sure that lawyers WILL FIND IT during the discovery process.

Nvidia GTX 970 with "4 GB, but actually no" case took almost 2 years, in the end Nvidia settled to compensate US buyers (and noone else) $30 and pay millions in legal fees, at the time when the card was already old generation, so many buyers already moved on.

Lawsuit against Nvidia misrepresenting and hiding impact of sales to crypto miners was dismissed, because judge found no clear evidence Nvidia knowingly mislead shareholders - and every child could look at Nvidia revenue reports and see that there was sudden and unexplainable increase in server, automotive, professional imaging that coincided with crypto sales rise, and a fall when the crypto crashed...

So I wouldn't dare to type in all caps about how legal system should work.

 

[mahirzukic2]

Nvidia GTX 970 with "4 GB, but actually no" case took almost 2 years, in the end Nvidia settled to compensate US buyers (and noone else) $30 and pay millions in legal fees, at the time when the card was already old generation, so many buyers already moved on.

Lawsuit against Nvidia misrepresenting and hiding impact of sales to crypto miners was dismissed, because judge found no clear evidence Nvidia knowingly mislead shareholders - and every child could look at Nvidia revenue reports and see that there was sudden and unexplainable increase in server, automotive, professional imaging that coincided with crypto sales rise, and a fall when the crypto crashed...

So I wouldn't dare to type in all caps about how legal system should work.

My main point regarding the discovery is that is alleviates the "Intel might target just that uncertainty" issue.
Now as to how much can be reclaimed in damages in the resulting litigation, is anyone's guess.

 

[mkppo]

I think the only reason Intel extended the warranty is because they are moral upstanding citizens and they really love and care about their customers

Have you watched the video GN made about the moral upstanding citizens? Unfortunately it only shows their recent love and care for their customers but go back a couple of decades and it becomes perfectly evident just how moral they are as citizens. If they were based in the UK, they'd be named Dr. Intel today

 

[Hecate91]

Yes, intel is refusing rmas left right and center. Sorry, I can't reason against hatred. No amount of facts will convince you otherwise, so let's go with that, intel is refusing rmas. Which Intel chip do you happen to have?

The evidence available from a bunch of claims of Intel refusing RMAs isn't hating on them.
And why does it matter what cpu I have?

I think the only reason Intel extended the warranty is because they are moral upstanding citizens

If Intel had any moral upstanding they wouldn't have hidden the degradation issue for 2 years, or changed their statements after the tech press reported on it, or removed valid questions from the reddit thread. If Intel loved and cared about their customers there would have been a full recall and a tool to check for degradation, not telling their users to repeatedly install an nvidia driver to check for issues.

Don't worry, Intel already announced that an extension is on the works for tray and oems as well.

Intel should have extended the warranty for all of their cpu's in the first place, not waiting until there is backlash for it, their handling of this whole situation has been terrible.

 

[mahirzukic2]

Have you watched the video GN made about the moral upstanding citizens? Unfortunately it only shows their recent love and care for their customers but go back a couple of decades and it becomes perfectly evident just how moral they are as citizens. If they were based in the UK, they'd be named Dr. Intel today

I think he was being sarcastic. Forgot the /s

 

[Vayra86]

your feelings.

I think the only reason Intel extended the warranty is because they are moral upstanding citizens and they really love and care about their customers.

at least they are trying.

You should apply a mirror to these comments for yourself and look at it long and hard. You and I both know you're not this naive. Stop bullshitting, or lacking that, soldier on, but welcome to my shitlist.
This isn't about 'Intel hate', its about their lackluster response and wording on top of the long apparent denial of their hot and power hungry CPUs. Every gen, when limits got stretched, they had a cool story that basically said 'This is fine' or, amounted to 'Overclocking is on your own risk, so go F yourself anyway'. We have a half dozen new metrics for turbo behaviour for example. It all just screams 'do the minimum and see if we get caught' while trying to keep some semblance of progress on paper in their spec sheets. And now they get caught. And they'll again try doing the minimum. There's no need to deny that, in fact, it would serve you well not to, because your supposed words 'of reason' in this topic and many others get a very weird aftertaste.

Its already a major fuckup these CPUs managed to land in a retail box in the first place, but Intel just stacked two and maybe even three more screwups on top of that to prove their point: you, little customer, are irrelevant and we just want your money. There's no conceivable way to read between the lines here, I'm surprised you managed to.

 

[iNinja9K]

I think you can sue everyone and everything nowadays. Here are some examples. Like Ozempic, hernia mesh, CrowdStrike. And it's not bad. It's great that we can do that, and these companies can pay for what they are doing.