Some real piece of information there. It is crazy how this whole story went from bad to worst over absolutely nothing but assumptions.
I hope it is a lesson learned for many that jumped on this bandwagon. Another reason for not trusting a single word from the mouth of Intel. They literally mislead people into believing Ryzen 3000 series was having a shorter life expectancy, or that boost clock were not fixable...
They are fighting for their life right now. They will try anything for making AMD train derailing. They played the press like a harp from hell. They will try to control the message as much as they can.
Sounds exactly like the PCI-E overdrawing issue on the RX 480 3 years ago. A reputable publication found something wrong, then concludes it to be "not too wrong", and then got patched by AMD entirely. Basically a little quirk that got fixed. But in both cases, the whole internet went nuts (including the competition this time around).
Why not talk about something that AMD actually blundered, like giving crappy reference coolers to the 5700 XT and BIOS reliability concerns on older chipsets paired with Zen 2 CPUs? These two issues mentioned deserve much more attention.
Probably no one believed those reduced reliability claims. Seriously, how many CPUs you've seen that died while working in stable conditions? I have exactly 0. And that includes overclocked and overvolted CPUs that have at least a theoretical reason to have shorter life span: even with them it was always motherboard the died first.
Boost clocks issue is also blown out of proportions. Are we in P4 era when clock=performance? Who cares about something so useless as peak boost clock what you may see only a fraction of first second? I'd trade peak boost number for sustained performance any day.