News Puget says its Intel chips failures are lower than Ryzen failures — retailer releases failure rate data, cites conservative power settings

[CelicaGT]

It'd be interesting to see the rates for both sides from the mass OEMs like Dell and HP, companies that deal in a very large volume of CPUs to see how they fare over time.

Pretty much this. Puget's sales are a rounding error at best and despite their claims, are not high enough to be statistically relevant.

 

[TheHerald]

To be fair though, they will likely have the same conservative bios for 12th gen, so being the same tick tok cycle it just makes sense with the lower clocked ones lives better

You are correct, they do. And also for AMD, let's not forget that.

 

[YSCCC]

But neither does AMD, since even with this low performance for the 7950x it still fails at over twice the rate of Intel, right?

They sell a lot less units of AMD, so the percentage rather than complete numbers could affect the % a lot more, and this level of "twice the rate" claim is just argue for the sake of argue, and 7000s on their graph basically are all DOA duds so fail in shop, fail in field is what matters, especially with custom settings, we could also argue that they nerf the 7950X less no? default both should score around 38k, now one being 31k and one being 33k. this is a moot point, if they indeed fail at twice the rate outside of Puget, where does it go for all those RMA and instability complain for this gen of AMD? only intel pops out left and right since 2022

 

[YSCCC]

You are correct, they do. And also for AMD, let's not forget that.

let's not forget what both advertise their spec frequenices and VIDs are, the whole RPL at this point of time looks like they are way over specced for the silicon and their factory VID table, for AMD they did seems know better what they should push for their performance.

 

[TheHerald]

They sell a lot less units of AMD, so the percentage rather than complete numbers could affect the % a lot more, and this level of "twice the rate" claim is just argue for the sake of argue, and 7000s on their graph basically are all DOA duds so fail in shop, fail in field is what matters, especially with custom settings, we could also argue that they nerf the 7950X less no? default both should score around 38k, now one being 31k and one being 33k. this is a moot point, if they indeed fail at twice the rate outside of Puget, where does it go for all those RMA and instability complain for this gen of AMD? only intel pops out left and right since 2022

Well low field rates with high shop rates basically means that the chips are coming out dead from the factory at an alarming rate (compared to everything else). Even zen 3 was doing better in that front.

Yes, they "nerf" the 13900k for rendering workloads, but it still retains most of it's speed for the intended workloads. As puget themselves said in the review, for the type of workloads these are intended for, the performance difference is within 1-2% between their settings and the mobo defaults.

Why do we have more reports for Intel issues? Well because A) They sell a TON more CPUs and B) not everyone is running intel defaults.


Im sure the 14th gen failure rates are way higher - even higher than zen 4 - when youa re running unlimited power.

 

[YSCCC]

Why do we have more reports for Intel issues? Well because A) They sell a TON more CPUs and B) not everyone is running intel defaults.


Im sure the 14th gen failure rates are way higher - even higher than zen 4 - when youa re running unlimited power.

Exactly, that intel didn't enforce their defaults, or even clearly define a single "safe default" for their line up is what makes all this mess, is "extreme profile" only power hungry but safe? if "Performance" being the guaranteed safe? they didn't even state that out till today, and sure enough this alone is not solving the problem that is why that mircale microcode is coming. From the ground up it is not that a processor just fails, it is that it fails at alarming rate under what was advertised performance, if they advertise it as the 14900k having 33k R23 and need to run at performance profile, FINE, but sorry that wasn't the case, and RMA is denied for quite a while, that IS the probelm.

Also note that for stability complains out there, most are from UE5 engine games where the decompression shows the failure for otherwise completely stable system for daily use, and that this error only apparently affects RPL, which might or might not shown up in Puget's test suite.

 

[diminishedfifth]

Makes sense why they haven't seen more i7 & i9. Maybe stick with the regular BIOS and they see what others have been experiencing

 

[TheHerald]

Exactly, that intel didn't enforce their defaults, or even clearly define a single "safe default" for their line up is what makes all this mess, is "extreme profile" only power hungry but safe? if "Performance" being the guaranteed safe? they didn't even state that out till today, and sure enough this alone is not solving the problem that is why that mircale microcode is coming. From the ground up it is not that a processor just fails, it is that it fails at alarming rate under what was advertised performance, if they advertise it as the 14900k having 33k R23 and need to run at performance profile, FINE, but sorry that wasn't the case, and RMA is denied for quite a while, that IS the probelm.

Also note that for stability complains out there, most are from UE5 engine games where the decompression shows the failure for otherwise completely stable system for daily use, and that this error only apparently affects RPL, which might or might not shown up in Puget's test suite.

Well - anyone tech savy enough would realize what really safe is, regardless of what Intel claims. Obviously 6ghz ST boosts aren't safe. 5.9ghz or whatever the ks is running all core speeds under a blender workload aren't safe. 1.4 and above volts aren't safe. You have to be kinda silly to think these are safe values.

Why what and who's fault is it that Intel chips running like that out of the box, don't know - don't care either - cause i'm not running 6ghz all core. Or when I do, I fully realize that i'm slowly killing the chip.

Yes obviously AT LEAST part of the blame is with intel that allows this, but come on, all mobo manafacturers have professional overclockers testing their bioses. Not one of them understood the simple fact that 1.5 volts or whatever their mobo was pushing isnt safe 24/7 voltage?

Puget failure rates according to their own claims are CPUs that experienced a crash or a bsod during their testing.

 

[YSCCC]

Well - anyone tech savy enough would realize what really safe is, regardless of what Intel claims. Obviously 6ghz ST boosts aren't safe. 5.9ghz or whatever the ks is running all core speeds under a blender workload aren't safe. 1.4 and above volts aren't safe. You have to be kinda silly to think these are safe values.

Why on earth should we not trust that intel's own spec and VID written into their CPU is safe? it's like we don't trust Porsche engine can safely rev to 9k rpm. When this is what they written into their default, it is completely Intel's fault, which is called false advertising. It is not the user or board partner's fault to not downclock what is set by intel for their boost clock and VID, and for board partners, that they can't even do so, guess what will happen just for example, intel advertise 6ghz, and Asus jump out and say, no, this is by no means possible, so we locked it to 5.3? They just won't sell since they shouldn't know more than Intel, and a normal user who bought them for blender workload should not be required to look for the HW monitors and being also a "tech savy" to under clock their paid product's default.

We might be uncomfortable to the high temp/VID they are pushing but we are not the one having the professional knowledge to claim we know more than Intel team, otherwise I will be the one making 20billion a year, not whole Intel. I recall back in early ADL/RPL era Der8auer have an interview with an Intel engineer asking about cooling of TjMax of 100C, and Intel rep said very clearly that it is what designed to be safe and long lasting, so don't worry, just run it as intended.

Puget failure rates according to their own claims are CPUs that experienced a crash or a bsod during their testing.

Then it likely won't spot those with the UE5 decompression/ out of V -ram issues where the gamers out there suffers, ppl have been reporting PCs running hours of Cinebench being stable and still get those erros. For such CPUs they are still not stable, as the codes runs fine in other systems, but not RPL

 

[Conor Stewart]

Well - anyone tech savy enough would realize what really safe is, regardless of what Intel claims. Obviously 6ghz ST boosts aren't safe. 5.9ghz or whatever the ks is running all core speeds under a blender workload aren't safe. 1.4 and above volts aren't safe. You have to be kinda silly to think these are safe values.

Why what and who's fault is it that Intel chips running like that out of the box, don't know - don't care either - cause i'm not running 6ghz all core. Or when I do, I fully realize that i'm slowly killing the chip.

Yes obviously AT LEAST part of the blame is with intel that allows this, but come on, all mobo manafacturers have professional overclockers testing their bioses. Not one of them understood the simple fact that 1.5 volts or whatever their mobo was pushing isnt safe 24/7 voltage?

Puget failure rates according to their own claims are CPUs that experienced a crash or a bsod during their testing.

Are you a semiconductor engineer? If not then how can you say if it is safe or not? At one point 500 MHz would have been considered unsafe so your arguments are nonsense. Technology, especially computing changes all the time, if you were tech savvy then you would know that.

Yes they likely pushed it too far but do you really think we reached 5 GHz (or whatever arbitrary frequency you think is the limit) and that is the maximum safe limit from this moment until the end of time?

Yes intel pushed it too far but that doesn't mean it is unreachable or unrealistic.

 

[TheHerald]

Are you a semiconductor engineer? If not then how can you say if it is safe or not? At one point 500 MHz would have been considered unsafe so your arguments are nonsense. Technology, especially computing changes all the time, if you were tech savvy then you would know that.

Yes they likely pushed it too far but do you really think we reached 5 GHz (or whatever arbitrary frequency you think is the limit) and that is the maximum safe limit from this moment until the end of time?

Yes intel pushed it too far but that doesn't mean it is unreachable or unrealistic.

You are right, you need to be a semiconductor engineer to realize 400 watts and 1.4+.volts ain't safe for 24/7. My bad.

 

[Dustyboy1492]

Oh wow, actual data instead of internet rumors, anecdotes and conjecture.

 

[awake283]

If you look at the graph this is only for ~15 systems. Hardly enough of a sample size to draw any meaningful conclusions from, right?

 

[awake283]

Oh wow, actual data instead of internet rumors, anecdotes and conjecture.

At this point if you think it's all from rumors and conjecture I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[CeeBee_Eh]

This story contradicts Puget's earlier statements. And considering the conflict of interest with Tom's Hardware writers (that are mods on the Intel sub-reddit) censoring genuine questions and complaints on r/Intel, this article is highly suspect.

 

[thestryker]

If Puget's statistics are true, then where's the AMD customer posts and outrage then.

Since 1995, I've never had an AMD or Intel CPU fail on me. Had a few GPUs, hard drives and PSUs break though.

I think you're missing the point and also aren't paying attention to the data at all. Puget has a lower Intel failure rate than most because of the way they tune their systems. The failure rate for AMD is still extremely low it just happens to be slightly higher overall. AMD also seems to have more failures from the factory, but once they've been installed are good. While both are important metrics failing over time is worse than something identifiable up front.

It's still clear from their data that 13/14th Gen Intel are having problems (you can tell by the 13th gen field failures especially). The takeaway should be that the way they're tuned still makes a difference in their longevity even with the voltage problem.

 

[phitinh81]

Temp is high. People's loosing their mind. Credibility fried.

 

[awake283]

This story contradicts Puget's earlier statements. And considering the conflict of interest with Tom's Hardware writers (that are mods on the Intel sub-reddit) censoring genuine questions and complaints on r/Intel, this article is highly suspect.

Just curious but what previous statement? I looked on their website and the only blog post related to this is the most current one.

 

[awake283]

I think you're missing the point and also aren't paying attention to the data at all. Puget has a lower Intel failure rate than most because of the way they tune their systems. The failure rate for AMD is still extremely low it just happens to be slightly higher overall. AMD also seems to have more failures from the factory, but once they've been installed are good. While both are important metrics failing over time is worse than something identifiable up front.

It's still clear from their data that 13/14th Gen Intel are having problems (you can tell by the 13th gen field failures especially). The takeaway should be that the way they're tuned still makes a difference in their longevity even with the voltage problem.

The chart is still only for 15 computers. Who cares with that sample size?

 

[Dr3ams]

I think you're missing the point and also aren't paying attention to the data at all.

I don't trust Puget's statistics. If you pick a specific enough hardware category and are in control of the narrative, you can prove almost anything with statistics.

I think Intel dog whistled and Puget came running.

 

[thestryker]

The chart is still only for 15 computers. Who cares with that sample size?

If you think their charts are only for "15 computers" you're incapable of understanding math and/or charts. If they've had ~34 14th Gen failures and that accounts for about 2.5% of them failing that the total number of just 14th Gen is over 1300.

 

[thestryker]

I don't trust Puget's statistics. If you pick a specific enough hardware category and are in control of the narrative, you can prove almost anything with statistics.

I think Intel dog whistled and Puget came running.

Ah so you're one of those who made up their mind already and thus you know what you know because you know it.

 

[Dr3ams]

Ah so you're one of those who made up their mind already and thus you know what you know because you know it.

Jeez, you sound like a priest.

 

[awake283]

If you think their charts are only for "15 computers" you're incapable of understanding math and/or charts. If they've had ~34 14th Gen failures and that accounts for about 2.5% of them failing that the total number of just 14th Gen is over 1300.

Im honestly asking, what am I not understanding? The chart says 15 and doesnt say anything about that being that being anything but whats listed. Side note, how are they a profitable business if they're only selling ~15 systems a month?

 

[Mattzun]

Its clear that most of the big OEMs have the same strategy of using conservative settings to avoid support costs.

I wonder if Intel has known that they were pushing things to levels that weren't stable in the long term but didn't do anything about it because it wouldn't really affect Dell etc.

Dell's standard $1800 14700 system has a single 32GB stick of DDR5 RAM.
This is just insane given that the 2x16GB config is a zero dollar option and it should be 10 percent faster.
I suspect that the systems are more stable with a single stick of RAM

I'd also suspect that Dell's BIOS also has conservative settings and the user can't even pick many of the options that MB vendors have that could increase support costs.