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

[Outback Bronze]

So, if 11th gen is so bad, how come I never heard about it like the so called famous 13/14th gen??

 

[jonny2772]

Suspicious Intel-sponsored content...

Nahh, it's your imagination for sure.

 

[Launcestonian]

So, if 11th gen is so bad, how come I never heard about it like the so called famous 13/14th gen??

Probably because Rocket lake never sold in large enough numbers to make a statistical dent.

With regards to the AMD problems, anyone remember the SOC overvoltage fiasco some time ago when anything more than 1.30v was deemed unsafe? I'll bet that's what caused the AMD systems to flop.

 

[Bwaze]

I wonder what prompted Puget Systems to check whether the base motherboard settings adhere to Intel documented base CPU settings, and then to change the motherboard settings when they found out they didn't? Was the reason absolute stability, or did they suspect any increased power would shorten life expectancy of the CPU?

Intel apologists were quick to point out we should disregard the reported high failure rates from companies that used these consumer CPUs in render farms, servers - that this is just product misuse, there is a reason why companies sell server, workstation lines of CPUs. Puget Systems builds and tests workstations just from such products, consumer CPUs - isn't this info invalid too? Or is this now perfectly acceptable, because the end line is "AMD fails even more", especially when you bury the point that Intel CPUs are beginning to show elevated failure rates later in their life?

 

[Neo_Morpheus]

View attachment 357586



View attachment 357587



Nahh, it's your imagination for sure.

Now everything makes perfect sense.

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

 

[stimpy88]

I have never seen evidence of this claim, ever! My system is OC's as far as it can go, and it's been like that for nearly 4 years. Total stability, and it's on for 8 or 9 days at a time. My kid has my old 3900x and that's still kicking too.

This nasty lie is brought to you by Intel, and we will start seeing more of these being spewed out by Intel's "partners" over the next few months. Despicable company.

 

[JWNoctis]

Okay, story time: A quite similar A versus B comparision in another community was with Airbus and Boeing, and the two had never quite, directly or indirectly, called each other's aircrafts unsafe, even in the aftermaths of tragedies like the AF447, and the MAX accidents. Notably, Boeing's saga with the MAX bear some resemblance to Intel's current predicament, except for the actual loss of life.

This one may bear some comparison, depending on how much further (and/or lower) the recriminations go. And whether the story would be corroborated elsewhere.

 

[Neo_Morpheus]

I wonder what prompted Puget Systems to check whether the base motherboard settings adhere to Intel documented base CPU settings, and then to change the motherboard settings when they found out they didn't? Was the reason absolute stability, or did they suspect any increased power would shorten life expectancy of the CPU?

Intel apologists were quick to point out we should disregard the reported high failure rates from companies that used these consumer CPUs in render farms, servers - that this is just product misuse, there is a reason why companies sell server, workstation lines of CPUs. Puget Systems builds and tests workstations just from such products, consumer CPUs - isn't this info invalid too? Or is this now perfectly acceptable, because the end line is "AMD fails even more", especially when you bury the point that Intel CPUs are beginning to show elevated failure rates later in their life?

Those intel apologists are also the same that will yell “power consumption and heat produced dont matter!”

Then funny enough, they will also say “AMD gpus sucks because of their high power consumption and heat!”

We have been in the twilight zone for a while now.

 

[AusWolf]

I came across some stats from Puget systems on r/hardware, Puget sold about 70-80% Intel systems in 2023.

That being the case, isn't it in their own best interest to prevent a potential mass RMA action among the customer base? Their case doesn't seem completely lacking of bias, just sayin'.

 

[Hecate91]

View attachment 357586



View attachment 357587



Nahh, it's your imagination for sure.

This explains a lot, the conflict of interest makes the whole comparison questionable in fairness, and the fact Puget didn't publish a a timeline graph of Ryzen failures.

Those intel apologists are also the same that will yell “power consumption and heat produced dont matter!”

Then funny enough, they will also say “AMD gpus sucks because of their high power consumption and heat!”

We have been in the twilight zone for a while now.

I recall some Intel users complaining of AMD cpus not giving the user enough control, that sure has backfired when AMD is doing it right in comparison to Intel not providing any recommended guidelines even with workstation or server boards.

 

[AusWolf]

View attachment 357586



View attachment 357587



Nahh, it's your imagination for sure.

Yeah, what I said above, even more so.

 

[Wirko]

This seems like damage control from Puget, no sample size listed or what SKU's of Ryzen processors are failing.

To determine the scale of the findings, we asked Puget about the number of systems the PC builder has shipped. “We don’t do a ton of volume, but it’s enough for some statistical relevance. The exact number and distribution changes a bit over time, but we do about 200 workstations a month on [AMD] Ryzen/[Intel] Core. Typically, we can see more Core than Ryzen sales (call it an 80/20% split) but in 2021 that was inverse as Ryzen had a particularly competitive product. Those numbers omit all our EPYC, Xeon, Threadripper sales,” Bach told Tom's Hardware.

So basically, all of the systems had Puget's own conservative power settings applied instead of the BIOS default. That's how you fabricate statistics, congratulations!

All systems means Intel and AMD. They don't trust the defaults, they have stated that openly.

What I don't get is why Puget even uses Intel K chips. They say they build workstations, and they tame the power settings anyway.

 

[AusWolf]

All systems means Intel and AMD. They don't trust the defaults, they have stated that openly.

Still, own custom settings hardly make reliable statistics about the durability of a product, especially without stating what those settings are for each individual system.

I could also say that out of all my unused CPUs collecting dust on a shelf, none have ever produced a fault, therefore, faulty CPUs are a myth.

What I don't get is why Puget even uses Intel K chips. They say they build workstations, and they tame the power settings anyway.

That's a good question, too.

 

[Wirko]

Yeah, what I said above, even more so.

They don't seem to be married to Intel. On all of their product pages, AMD comes first. But, as they aren't AMD exclusive, they certainly make most of their income by selling Intel. Nobody ever got fired for buying Intel - that still holds true, I believe.

If anyone needs more horror stories: Puget vice president is an MBA!

Still, own custom settings hardly make reliable statistics about the durability of a product, especially without stating what those settings are for each individual system.

Yes. Hm, you can also take in inverse approach in interpreting their stats: They are careful to not turn up the power settings to eleven (or twelve, or thirteen, or fourteen). But a significant percentage of Intel CPUs still die!

 

[Neo_Morpheus]

They don't seem to be married to Intel. On all of their product pages, AMD comes first.

That might be now, but trust me, that was not the case before.

They were as bad or worse than Dell.

In their eyes, no AMD cpu was worthy of even a recommendation.

 

[Hecate91]

All systems means Intel and AMD. They don't trust the defaults, they have stated that openly.

What I don't get is why Puget even uses Intel K chips. They say they build workstations, and they tame the power settings anyway.

So Puget has an 80/20 split, but claims their AMD failures are worse, any failures they have in 20% vs 80% needs more data than they're providing, I'd like to see at least a timeline and what Ryzen cpu's failed the most.
I would have to guess Puget did thorough testing on finding more stable power settings, although with the conflict of interest I wonder if Intel quietly told them lower power settings would decrease failure rates, given Intel didn't admit to any issues happening since 2022 until Level1techs and GN reported on workstations and servers crashing.
Why Puget is using K sku's is a good question, they're running them at lower settings anyway so a K cpu is unnecessary, unless its due to marketing specs.

That being the case, isn't it in their own best interest to prevent a potential mass RMA action among the customer base? Their case doesn't seem completely lacking of bias, just sayin'.

Yeah good point, though I wonder what made them check if their settings were closer to base Intel specs. Did Puget do internal testing to find if certain cpus were failing sooner?

 

[stimpy88]

That being the case, isn't it in their own best interest to prevent a potential mass RMA action among the customer base? Their case doesn't seem completely lacking of bias, just sayin'.

You're missing the point. Any recent owner of a 14th gen system bought from them with a brain will return the thing under warranty, even if they are not having issues, and many would want their money back.

The real point is that they want you to just buy another Intel product, and not jump ship and buy AMD, which is what many would do without threats or bribery. Threats are cheaper.

 

[Bwaze]

That might be now, but trust me, that was not the case before.

They were as bad or worse than Dell.

In their eyes, no AMD cpu was worthy of even a recommendation.

But they did point out problems with Intel, hyperthreading and Adobe products - where for years certain tasks gained tons of speed if you disabled hyperthreading, but you of course lost performance in other tasks.

And already when Zen 1 CPUs showed clear advantage, they made good presentations on how much better they were for productivity, even when normal reviews that focused more on gaming still favored Intel.

 

[stimpy88]

What I don't get is why Puget even uses Intel K chips. They say they build workstations, and they tame the power settings anyway.

Because is all 13/14 gen 65w and higher CPUs. You need to keep up with Intel's own statements on the matter.

That might be now, but trust me, that was not the case before.

They were as bad or worse than Dell.

In their eyes, no AMD cpu was worthy of even a recommendation.

Follow the money.

 

[kapone32]

If you actually believe that 5000 being the last chip from AMD AM4 would have issues like this I would laugh.

 

[AusWolf]

Any recent owner of a 14th gen system bought from them with a brain will return the thing under warranty, even if they are not having issues, and many would want their money back.

1. Why would anyone return a fine, working CPU?
2. Why would Puget honour warranty claims on fine, working CPUs?

 

[Noyand]

The timing, the fact that they had never bothered publishing failure rates before(have they?), especially when 11th gen was failing at such higher rates, does point in that direction.

As a matter of fact, they did publish failure rates before. But whatever happened with 11th gen didn't blew up as much as the raptor lake stuff, Puget was probably forced to make an article about that people their customers who choosed an Intel workstation crapped their pants. (especially since RPL was the recommended CPU for video editing, motion design, and photo editing this time around)

 

[Sabotaged_Enigma]

Nahh, it's your imagination for sure.

Hmm... yeah I'd like to believe the report is true. I mean suspicious for the time of publishing it. It's only a few days before the patch comes out.
If they've got those valid numbers, they could've published them much earlier to help Intel, couldn't they?

 

[Wirko]

Because is all 13/14 gen 65w and higher CPUs. You need to keep up with Intel's own statements on the matter.

All, but not all equally. The damage is related to voltage. With that said, the plain i9-14900 is by no means conservative, it clocks up to 5.8 GHz.

 

[Chrispy_]

I've been building mostly AMD systems since the 3000-series and I've had to send back more 5000-series CPUs than all of the 2nd-9th gen Intel CPUs combined. We also disable PBO+, and we use a variety of boards from the four main vendors, mostly Gigabyte and MSI.

My impressions of AMD used to be that that their QC wasn't quite as good as Intel, but in the last couple of years I've seen enough first hand and third-party evidence of Intel CPUs failing (even in OEM systems and laptops) that I'm convinced newer CPUs are either just being pushed too close to their silicon limits or modern, smaller process nodes are causing problems on a scale that we never used to see with the old double-digit nanometre nodes.