Discussion Issues with AMD7000 series cpu's

[zx128k]

Reddit and YouTube are your reliable sources of data for cpu failure rates? Please look at this data and let us know what you think?

Intel's 11th Gen CPUs Had the Highest Failure Rates of All CPUs b/w 2019-21 | Hardware Times

Intel’s 11th Gen Core processors had the highest failure rate among all consumer CPUs between the years 2019 and 2021. This data was compiled by Puget Systems using the data collected over the last 3 years. The system builder used the following processor families to calculate the below...

www.hardwaretimes.com

The only people that know the failure rates of AMD CPUs are AMD. Even then their data wont be complete because they will only get information of RMA'ed cpus. Meanwhile the failure rate of the 7000 series... pointed to a massive mess up on AMD's part. This after their issues with the RX 7900 xtx cooler.

From Intel 11th gen was the only one. For AMD its every series.

Intel's 11th Gen Core Rocket Lake is considered highly peculiar since their previous 10th Gen Core and Core X series, as well as Xeon W and Scalable CPUs, were extremely lower than their AMD comparable chips, by less than a single percentage. It is unknown the issues but is speculated that the cooling mechanisms for Rocket Lake CPUs were the culprit. Intel's new 12th Gen Core Alder Lake CPUs did not make the list due to how recently they were released into the market.

Source

AMD CPUs in general had higher failure rates than Intel, but we did see an oddly high rate of failures with Intel's consumer-oriented 11th Gen processors… which seems odd, especially next to the very low rates shown by the preceeding 10th Gen.

Source tomshardware

However, the 11th generation (Rocket Lake) Core failure rates were considered an extreme oddity given that the 10th-Gen Core, Core X, and Xeon W/Scalable processors were well below their AMD counterparts (less than 1%). We don't know what the issue could be, although perhaps the high thermals of Rocket Lake processors were to blame.

Say we pick a random point in time. 2013. Source shows Intel more reliable than AMD.

“What this shows is that if you built an Intel/NVIDIA GeForce system yourself, based on past failure rates you have about a 1 in 7 chance of there being some sort of hardware problem. But if you purchase the exact same system from Puget Systems, this risk goes down to a 1 in 30 chance since we catch the majority of the hardware problems before you would even see the machine. Similarly, if you build an AMD/AMD Radeon system yourself, you have a a 1 in 5 chance of having a hardware problem versus a 1 in 27 chance if you purchase the exact same system from Puget Systems. In short, our data indicates that you are approximately 4-5 times more likely to encounter a hardware problem when building a computer yourself than when purchasing a complete computer from Puget Systems.” – Puget Systems

2018

CPU (Processor)​

While CPUs can (and do) fail, once they make it through our production process they are easily the most reliable components in our workstations. CPUs overall had a small overall failure rate of just .2% (1 in every 500), but what is really amazing is that in 2018 not a single CPU failed in the field for our customers. Another tidbit of information is that there was no appreciable difference between the Intel Core series and the Intel Xeon series of CPUs. Each only had a handful of CPU failures, all of which were caught by our production department.


We sell far more Intel CPUs than AMD (although that is starting to shift a bit with the latest Threadripper models), which means we don't have enough data to really dig into the reliability of AMD CPUs. From the data we do have, they look to be just as reliable as Intel, but we do not have a large enough sample size to be 100% confident in that conclusion.


Since there were no real trends showing one Intel CPU model as being better or worse than another in terms of reliability, we are simply going to give Intel processors, in general, our "Most Reliable CPU of 2018" award.

2016

2016 was a bit of a rocky year for CPUs in terms of failure rate. Last year, we only saw an overall failure rate of .33%, but this year it jumped up to .76%. This is actually still very good, just not as good as it was last year. We did not sell enough AMD CPU/APUs in 2016 for us to make a call on their reliability, but for Intel CPUs we can give numbers divided up between all Intel CPUs, Core i3/i5/i7, and Xeon E3/E5:

Intel CPUs	Total Failure Rate	Field Failure Only
Overall	.76%	.28%
Intel Core i3/i5/i7	1.0%	.34%
Intel Xeon E3/E5	.32%	.16%

One interesting thing to point out is that we saw less than half the failure rate with Intel Xeon CPUs versus the Intel Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs. Due to the jump in Core i3/i5/i7 failures compared to last year, we are going to make the call that if you want the most reliable CPU, we recommend using a Xeon CPU if possible.

2015

2015 was again an absolutely great year for CPUs in terms of failure rates. Note that in 2015 we did not sell enough AMD CPU/APUs for us to make a call on their reliability. For Intel, however, even though more and more technology is moving from motherboards to CPUs (memory controller, voltage regulator, etc.), the overall failure rate for Intel CPUs has not increased since last year. For 2015, we saw the failure rate of Intel CPUs to be:

Intel CPUs	Failure Rate
Overall	.33%
Intel Core i3/i5/i7	.38%
Intel Xeon E3/E5	.2%

2011-2014

2014 was again an absolutely great year for CPUs in terms of failure rates. Even though more and more technology is moving from motherboards to CPUs (memory controller, voltage regulator, etc.), the overall failure rate for both Intel and AMD CPUs has actually been improving in recent years.

​

CPU Failure Rates	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total Failures	1.45%	0.94%	0.41%	0.27%
Failures During Initial Testing (DOA)	0.39%	0.45%	0.19%	0.2%

As wee can see the 11th gen from Intel is not a part of the tread. The conclusion is AMD cpus have a higher failure rate using available data.

 

[GarrettL]

As wee can see the 11th gen from Intel is not a part of the tread. The conclusion is AMD cpus have a higher failure rate using available data.

The data shows the Intel 11000 series had a higher failure rate than the 5000 series. You can excuse a failurerate as you see fit.

The 11000 series that was another rehash of the 14nm process by Intel. I'll give credit for innovation as AMD was on 7nm with the 5000 series release.

The 5000 sereis was not part of this thread discussion either. The discussion was about the issues with the 7000 series. Your response then comes across as just plain bashing.



Many of the other articles you quoted from 2011-2018 clearly state they did not sell enough AMD cpu's to provide any accurate data on failure rates.

No one is arguing that a mistake was made by AMD with the release of the 7000 series. The worst error I've seen by either AMD or Intel at any launch. They know it too.

I'm sure we have more to learn about the problem.

I am no fanboy of either company. The competition between AMD and Intel is like nothing we've seen for well over a decade and it is great for the pc enthusiast. I just want the best hardware at the best price.

Regardless of manufacturer.

 

[zx128k]

The data shows the Intel 11000 series had a higher failure rate than the 5000 series. You can excuse a failurerate as you see fit.

The 11000 series that was another rehash of the 14nm process by Intel. I'll give credit for innovation as AMD was on 7nm with the 5000 series release.

The 5000 sereis was not part of this thread discussion either. The discussion was about the issues with the 7000 series. Your response then comes across as just plain bashing.



Many of the other articles clearly you quoted 2011-2018 clearly state they did not sell enough AMD cpu's to provide any accurate data on failure rates.

No one is arguing that a mistake was made by AMD with the release of the 7000 series. The worst error I've seen by either AMD or Intel at any launch. They know it too.

I'm sure we have more to learn about the problem.

I am no fanboy of either company. The competition between AMD and Intel is like nothing we've seen for well over a decade and it is great for the pc enthusiast. I just want the best hardware at the best price.

Regardless of manufacturer.

My conclusions are based on the data and are copies of the conclusions made in the source. Thus, this is a reasonably sound position for an opinion. As I had given data and shown my opinion matches said data. I can reject all counter arguements that don't meet the same standard.

The data provided shows the 11th gen as an outlier (In statistics, an outlier is a data point that differs significantly from other observations) in decades worth of data. Thus cant be used as an example of reliablity if you want to be honest about it. I dont have to give a reason to explain that failure rate, under logical this arguement is enough.

 

[GarrettL]

My conclusions are based on the data and are copies of the conclusions made in the source. Thus, this is a reasonably sound position for an opinion. As I had given data and shown my opinion matches said data. I can reject all counter arguements that don't meet the same standard.

The data provided shows the 11th gen as an outlier (In statistics, an outlier is a data point that differs significantly from other observations) in decades worth of data. Thus cant be used as an example of reliablity if you want to be honest about it. I dont have to give a reason to explain that failure rate, under logical this arguement is enough.

From the 2018 quote;

"We sell far more Intel CPUs than AMD (although that is starting to shift a bit with the latest Threadripper models), which means we don't have enough data to really dig into the reliability of AMD CPUs. From the data we do have, they look to be just as reliable as Intel, but we do not have a large enough sample size to be 100% confident in that conclusion."



From the 2016 quote;

"2016 was a bit of a rocky year for CPUs in terms of failure rate. Last year, we only saw an overall failure rate of .33%, but this year it jumped up to .76%. This is actually still very good, just not as good as it was last year. We did not sell enough AMD CPU/APUs in 2016 for us to make a call on their reliability..."



From the 2015 quote;

"2015 was again an absolutely great year for CPUs in terms of failure rates. Note that in 2015 we did not sell enough AMD CPU/APUs for us to make a call on their reliability".



From the 2011-2014 quote;

"2014 was again an absolutely great year for CPUs in terms of failure rates. Even though more and more technology is moving from motherboards to CPUs (memory controller, voltage regulator, etc.), the overall failure rate for both Intel and AMD CPUs has actually been improving in recent years".


I'm still trying to see how any of the info in the dated quoted provide any data owhatsover of failure rates of AMD compared to Intel. They simply don't.


So the large data pool we have only shows Intel 11th gen and AMD 5000 series. Intel had a higher failure rate with the 11th gen. It's not an outlier, it was trying to push the 14nm process and failure rate shows the result.




So I must say;

"My conclusions are based on the data and are copies of the conclusions made in the source. Thus, this is a reasonably sound position for an opinion. As I have not been provided data that supports your opinions, I can reject all counter arguements that don't meet the same standard".

 

[TerryLaze]

My conclusions are based on the data and are copies of the conclusions made in the source. Thus, this is a reasonably sound position for an opinion. As I had given data and shown my opinion matches said data. I can reject all counter arguements that don't meet the same standard.

The data provided shows the 11th gen as an outlier (In statistics, an outlier is a data point that differs significantly from other observations) in decades worth of data. Thus cant be used as an example of reliablity if you want to be honest about it. I dont have to give a reason to explain that failure rate, under logical this arguement is enough.

So I must say;

"My conclusions are based on the data and are copies of the conclusions made in the source. Thus, this is a reasonably sound position for an opinion. As I have not been provided data that supports your opinions, I can reject all counter arguements that don't meet the same standard".

 

[klavs]

I am very surprised AMD did not have them capped with the AM5 release.

I am not. The didn't cap them in order to win the benchmarks. Later, when they cap them, the average user will still trust the uncapped reviews.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

I am no fanboy of either company. The competition between AMD and Intel is like nothing we've seen for well over a decade and it is great for the pc enthusiast. I just want the best hardware at the best price.

Regardless of manufacturer.

Same here. If Intel had recently launched a new platform I'd most likely have stayed with them. I'm not gonna buy 13th gen though when it's already EOL.

 

[zx128k]

Once I gave evidence then someone would need to reply with something really good to win at this point. I'm completely in compliance with the data and thus reality. AMD are less reliable than Intel, this is an observation and is backed up with a large enough sample size. I think I will be fine here.

 

[kerberos_20]

That was prior to the reported issues. The new BIOS , as you are likely aware, has the EXPO and SoC limits that were not previously there to prevent damage. I am very surprised AMD did not have them capped with the AM5 release. They are capped on the AM4's and 5800x3d.

on ddr4 you dont need 1.4v on soc, 4ghz ram is around 1.1-1.2 vsoc

 

[zx128k]

on ddr4 you dont need 1.4v on soc, 4ghz ram is around 1.1-1.2 vsoc

From the information out there 1.4volts on the SoC is a very bad idea. Even my 10900k motherboard puts 1.5 volts into my vccsa for the memory overclock when what is needed is 1.25 volts. 1.35 volts vccio when 1.16 volts is needed.

I would set the voltages to safe values and wait for a bios fix. Better safe than sorry. Hopefully the issue goes away because I really wanted a 7800x3d.

 

[zx128k]

Some good news, https://www.tomshardware.com/news/agesa-1070-fixes-temperature-issues-ryzen-7000-burnout

They had to have known about this issue.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

Some good news, https://www.tomshardware.com/news/agesa-1070-fixes-temperature-issues-ryzen-7000-burnout

They had to have known about this issue.

I had a new BIOS update when I got home yesterday... installed it and I should be good to go.

 

[zx128k]

I would install it right away, I wonder if it will affect performance but better a working system in the long run.

States PBO not affected.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

I would install it right away, I wonder if it will affect performance but better a working system in the long run.

Yeah I installed last night and the voltages were adjusted. Watching that video now.

I didn’t see any performance issues. Ran 3DMark last night and benchmarks were the same or slightly higher.

 

[Why_Me]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiTngvvD5dI&t=2058s

 

[zx128k]

Really is a great video.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiTngvvD5dI&t=2058s

Really is a great video.

Yeah they actually offered to buy my dead parts in the comments but I already sent them back. Had I known last week I would have sold them to them.

 

[ttencza]

So what’s the consensus on this?
Is it only affecting X670 boards? Should I replace my 7800X3D? Is it safe to use Expo now? GN Steve said it shouldn’t be an issue but he didn’t sound 100% sure since board partners can screw up the profiles.

I’m also worried that I’ve done irreversible damage to my 7800X3D since I bought it on launch with an Asus B650E-F motherboard. I’m on the latest bios right now with good SOC voltages and Expo disabled for the time being.

This sucks because it felt good to have the “latest and greatest” for the past few weeks. However all these videos are making me feel super paranoid about my purchase.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

So what’s the consensus on this?

I wouldn’t feel paranoid. I certainly don’t and mine already blew up last week.

I’m running the new BIOS and EXPO is now enabled… no problems for the last 2 days. All my voltages are in spec.

Game on.

 

[ttencza]

mine already blew up last week.

That’s reaffirming 😂

Yeah, I have had no issues yet, but I’m just paranoid since I’m still within my 30 day return period. I’m wondering if I should replace the 7800X3D for peace of mind or just send it and hope mine lasts.

 

[TerryLaze]

GN Steve said it shouldn’t be an issue but he didn’t sound 100% sure

It's a newfangled thing called irony sarcasm, " don't worry about it since not every CPU will blow up" he said something like this.

Watch the video again, he said that it's an aging (slow degradation) issue and that you would have to have weak silicon in a few places of the CPU for it to have this issue and giving it a lot of volts just speeds things up.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

That’s reaffirming 😂

Yeah, I have had no issues yet, but I’m just paranoid since I’m still within my 30 day return period. I’m wondering if I should replace the 7800X3D for peace of mind or just send it and hope mine lasts.

I got unlucky. You probably won’t now that the updates are out to remedy the situation.

If you’re still paranoid… go Intel. I’m sticking with AM5.

 

[ttencza]

I got unlucky. You probably won’t now that the updates are out to remedy the situation.

If you’re still paranoid… go Intel. I’m sticking with AM5.

I figured it wasn’t going to affect EVERY chip so I think I’ll just stick it out with this one! The performance has been great and I’m really loving the low power consumption on these AM5 processors.

I was considering intel when I was planning the build but decided against it due to the heat and lack of future upgrades. I’m using an Arctic freezer ii 240 Aio and only reaching 70° under load with the software I use. Looks like I’ll just run this thing and not get hung up on all the drama!

As for the Expo stuff, I’ll probably keep it disabled for the next few bios updates just to be extra cautious. I’m still learning how things work so leaving it default will simply help me sleep at night lol

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

I figured it wasn’t going to affect EVERY chip so I think I’ll just stick it out with this one! The performance has been great and I’m really loving the low power consumption on these AM5 processors.

I was considering intel when I was planning the build but decided against it due to the heat and lack of future upgrades. I’m using an Arctic freezer ii 240 Aio and only reaching 70° under load with the software I use. Looks like I’ll just run this thing and not get hung up on all the drama!

As for the Expo stuff, I’ll probably keep it disabled for the next few bios updates just to be extra cautious. I’m still learning how things work so leaving it default will simply help me sleep at night lol

Haha… sounds good. You went AM5 for the same reasons I did… low power consumption and ease of future upgrades.

This is my first AMD build since the Athlon XP 1800+ back in 2001. That computer had a GeForce3 and Windows XP. 😂 Definitely not a fanboy but I figured if there was any time to jump ship from Intel it was right now.

The cpu implosion didn’t change my mind any. I didn’t lose anything but a single Saturday afternoon of gaming and time spent building and rebuilding the computer.

As for cooling… I went air cooler for the first time in a very long time. Nothing against water cooling at all… I just thought air cooling would be better given the chip and my ambient temps.

30 min all core cpu burn tests have resulted in steady temps 86-88C so I think the Noctua is doing a fine job.