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

[Pierce2623]

Out of curiosity - I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Went ahead and checked TPU review, intel wins in 25 workloads excluding the adobe ones. From video to music encoding, databases, microsoft apps, some AI stuff. So clearly, you are blatantly wrong, it's not just adobe that favors Intel

At ISO power (since puget is manually setting Intel defaults) it's not unreasonable. I've said that before, those better binned chips might look inefficient on reviews that run with no power limits, but they are in fact more efficient when you run them with some semblance of sanity. 5 to 15% means one CPU is running at 4.5 ghz and the other one at 4.8 to 5.2ghz. Completely within reason. If you put both the K and the KS at the same power, the KS is faster.

You’re using test data achieved with proven unsafe settings chief. Check again against Intel Baseline Profile. Even on those settings they win easily in Adobe but other than Adobe apps they win only in a very few other single threaded workloads. Phoronix has the data if you’re willing to compare across different articles.

 

[YSCCC]

Historically, Intel and AMD CPUs generally have dispalyed failure rates below 1% within the first year. Some estimates put these rates as low as 0.1% to 0.5%.This applies to large vendors such as Dell as well as to specialized integrators such as Puget Systems.

Now, these new numbers from Puget showing a recent surge of CPU failure rates between 2-7% are extremely alarming., especially as they are already tuning their systems fairly conservatiely.
That being said, it is safe to assume that failure rates from Dell, HP or Lenovo should be sigificantly lower than even those reported by Puget, considering that millions of customers would have been affected so far and there would be a much larger uproar in the public than we have seen so far..

So here is a conspiracy theory: What if Intel knew very well what's going with their CPUs and quietly told their large partners (such as Dell) to massively downregulate BIOS-/voltage-/PL-state-/RAM etc other settings. in their systems, particualry in their business and workstation desktop systems?

I think the thing is, most bit OEM like Dell , HP alike are selling off mostly i3 and i5 parts, and >90% area sold as office computers, which, running word, excel and emails won't likely need to boost the clock or voltage above idle for any amount of time, plus they ususally use lower grade Ram and SSD so taxing the controllers much less and thus stays relatively stable. Their higher end gaming PCs, on the other hand, like HP Omen lineup, will likely see a lot more RMA

 

[TheHerald]

You’re using test data achieved with proven unsafe settings chief. Check again against Intel Baseline Profile. Even on those settings they win easily in Adobe but other than Adobe apps they win only in a very few other single threaded workloads. Phoronix has the data if you’re willing to compare across different articles.

Ok, im giving you the benefit of the doubt for the 2nd time. I checked this

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...ke-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/2.html


The 14900k is winning or on par with the 7950x while being limited to 125w on 25 workloads. That's excluding the adobe applications you mentioned.

I think you are lying to me chief...

I find it funny that you said "they win on a few single threaded workloads". You mean - ALL of them? And that's one of the reasons they win in adobe, they are not majorly multithreaded. But yeah, everyone and everything that doesn't show the results you like is being paid by Intel, lol.

I also just checked phoronix. The 14900k got first place in 63 of their tests. The 7950x got first place in 72 of their tests. Are you suggesting that those 63 tests were just single threaded applications and adobe? Come on now...

 

[YSCCC]

Ok, im giving you the benefit of the doubt for the 2nd time. I checked this

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...ke-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/2.html


The 14900k is winning or on par with the 7950x while being limited to 125w on 25 workloads. That's excluding the adobe applications you mentioned.

I think you are lying to me chief...

I find it funny that you said "they win on a few single threaded workloads". You mean - ALL of them? And that's one of the reasons they win in adobe, they are not majorly multithreaded. But yeah, everyone and everything that doesn't show the results you like is being paid by Intel, lol.

I also just checked phoronix. The 14900k got first place in 63 of their tests. The 7950x got first place in 72 of their tests. Are you suggesting that those 63 tests were just single threaded applications and adobe? Come on now...

Chief, in the top, summary chart the 7950X is 97.1% of the 253W 14900k, and 125W limited 14900k was 91.4% of the 253W 14900k..........

and for single threaded workload of course the power locked 14900k is still faster, coz it still boost to 6ghz with single core, drinking something like 50W...

 

[TheHerald]

Chief, in the top, summary chart the 7950X is 97.1% of the 253W 14900k, and 125W limited 14900k was 91.4% of the 253W 14900k..........

and for single threaded workload of course the power locked 14900k is still faster, coz it still boost to 6ghz with single core, drinking something like 50W...

So? How is that relevant? Are you following the conversation or...?

 

[YSCCC]

So? How is that relevant? Are you following the conversation or...?

well, I am curious that for single threaded tests, since they are using the "known to be unsafe" 6ghz, why the test is still relevant at all?

 

[TheHerald]

well, I am curious that for single threaded tests, since they are using the "known to be unsafe" 6ghz, why the test is still relevant at all?

It's not just winning in the ST tests. Eg., clearly this is MT - look at where the 7700x is compared to the 7950x

Spoiler

Now of course you can argue intel is also paying EPIC alongside adobe, but this isn't getting anywhere is it?

 

[YSCCC]

It's not just winning in the ST tests. Eg., clearly this is MT - look at where the 7700x is compared to the 7950x

Spoiler

Now of course you can argue intel is also paying EPIC alongside adobe, but this isn't getting anywhere is it?

UE 5 is funny, coz a lot of 14900ks don't even can run it stable, and that's precisely where the developers are complaining about high failure rate

 

[TheHerald]

UE 5 is funny, coz a lot of 14900ks don't even can run it stable, and that's precisely where the developers are complaining about high failure rate

Even if that was the case - the point being it's faster in more than just adobe. But sure, let's ignore both adobe and UE5.

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-cor...t-power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/comsol.png

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k-raptor-lake-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/ai-training.png

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-cor...power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/compiler.png

Do I need to keep going?

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Even if that was the case - the point being it's faster in more than just adobe. But sure, let's ignore both adobe and UE5.

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-cor...t-power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/comsol.png

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k-raptor-lake-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/ai-training.png

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-cor...power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/compiler.png

Do I need to keep going?

What I take from those bar charts,
- the 125W setting enables the 14900k to be as power efficient as the 7950x with comparable time taken per task.
- lower power configurations take commensurately more time.
- higher power configurations show some time gains but for the main part show that the 14900k is running in the margins of diminishing returns relative to the 125W configuration

 

[TheHerald]

What I take from those bar charts,
- the 125W setting enables the 14900k to be as power efficient as the 7950x with comparable time taken per task.
- lower power configurations take commensurately more time.
- higher power configurations show some time gains but for the main part show that the 14900k is running in the margins of diminishing returns relative to the 125W configuration

Yes but that also applies to the 7950x. If you drop it's power performance won't be impacted as much. Generally speaking in heavy MT workloads the 7950x is a tad faster and therefore a tad more efficient at ISO power. On other tasks it's a wash but usually the intel part wins in both performance and efficiency eg. gaming / light load tasks.

 

[Pete Mitchell]

I have had two of the Intel CPUs with supposed problems. (reports saying that all 13th and 14th gen CPUs with TDP 65W and higher _could_ be affected). The first CPU was a core i5-13500 in an ASUS ROG STRIX ITX motherboard. I never overclocked the CPU but did overclock RAM to 5600. Ran this CPU for 1 year with no issues and sold to a friend who currently has it and says it's fine. I upgraded that CPU to a Core i7-14700. Again no overclocking except for RAM. I have applied all BIOS updates provided by ASUS to this system. Again, rock solid performance... After hearing all the news about CPU instability I decided to run some stress tests after updating to most recent BIOS. My results:

Cinebench R24 - 1 hour stress. No problems. multi-core score was 1579.
CPU-Z stress test. Ran for 1 hour. No issues. CPU temp went as high as 100C for a bit but leveled out in the high 60s (C).

I did a RESNET50 training on CIFAR data set on CPU (normally would do this on GPU) and that worked fine as well and stressed the CPU for about 50 minutes. Again no issues.

I think most of the problem is people are pushing their CPUs way beyond what they are designed to do. Don't overclock. If you must, overclock your memory. It's a lot cheaper to replace.

Thank you, oh wise one. 🙄

It hasn't happened to you yet, so everyone else must be doing something wrong.

 

[Pete Mitchell]

What is the source for that information? Over 50% failure rate? Are you an AMD employee?

Found the Intel shill.

 

[YSCCC]

Even if that was the case - the point being it's faster in more than just adobe. But sure, let's ignore both adobe and UE5.

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-cor...t-power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/comsol.png

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k-raptor-lake-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/ai-training.png

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-cor...power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/compiler.png

Do I need to keep going?

So let me try summarize what we've learnt from you and understand it's all the user's overaction and intel is still the stability and performance king:

1) The intel K SKUs are by default with intel, massively over powered, over volted and overclocked with speeds and voltage known by a tech savy, not a hobbist like myself, should know that intel have overspecced and to undervolt, underclock and current limit it as per the lower intel power profiles listed in their spec handbook

2) even under power limit to 125W (but not limiting max frequency and voltage) to 125W, they trade blows with 7950X, which could also power limit with comparable performance again, and no need to have a tech savy to undervolt and set 30 settings in Bios to limit it to the standards of tech savy to not degrade it within the same period (2 years since release)

3) It's only partially intels fault of not enforcing their board partners to employ those unlimited profiles which historically, is still perfectly safe for the built in safe guards inside the CPUs, and then stories of consumers suffers from degradation having trouble RMA their CPUs appears quite often even before all these evil techtubers exposed the "fake news"

4) For CPUs above 65W, since most still runs apparently fine (sure like those partially degraded and only crashs on UE5 games and looks fine under other workloads ATM), just announcing extending RMA for 2 years is above and beyond, no need to be recalled or further punished to regain consumer trust.

Especially point 1) Try tell that to the press if Intel gets sued, good luck for all the non tech savy customers will opt for the very stable yet top performing Intel next (and next next) gen SKUs...

 

[TheHerald]

So let me try summarize what we've learnt from you and understand it's all the user's overaction and intel is still the stability and performance king:

1) The intel K SKUs are by default with intel, massively over powered, over volted and overclocked with speeds and voltage known by a tech savy, not a hobbist like myself, should know that intel have overspecced and to undervolt, underclock and current limit it as per the lower intel power profiles listed in their spec handbook

2) even under power limit to 125W (but not limiting max frequency and voltage) to 125W, they trade blows with 7950X, which could also power limit with comparable performance again, and no need to have a tech savy to undervolt and set 30 settings in Bios to limit it to the standards of tech savy to not degrade it within the same period (2 years since release)

3) It's only partially intels fault of not enforcing their board partners to employ those unlimited profiles which historically, is still perfectly safe for the built in safe guards inside the CPUs, and then stories of consumers suffers from degradation having trouble RMA their CPUs appears quite often even before all these evil techtubers exposed the "fake news"

4) For CPUs above 65W, since most still runs apparently fine (sure like those partially degraded and only crashs on UE5 games and looks fine under other workloads ATM), just announcing extending RMA for 2 years is above and beyond, no need to be recalled or further punished to regain consumer trust.

Especially point 1) Try tell that to the press if Intel gets sued, good luck for all the non tech savy customers will opt for the very stable yet top performing Intel next (and next next) gen SKUs...

1) Yes, although that applies to zen 4 as well. Maybe not as massively , but it's still massively overvolted and overclocked. No way in hell i'd be running either a 14900k or a 7950x stock out of the box. The only saving grace that the 7950x has is that's it's hard to cool, so it thermal throttles right before it is able to hit those crazy clockspeeds and wattages. Intel has the "drawback" of being easy to cool so even a 40$ air cooler can push it to 300 watts+.

2) Yes

3) It's everyones fault, reviewers included. I've been saying this way before this fiasco, that reviewers should always test with sane power limits. That will put an end to both intel / amd the mobo manafacturers pushing crazy wattages and voltages to win.

Fun fact, say you are a reviewer. You test the CPU, you see it hitting 1.6 volts, you don't report any of that and life goes on. 2 years later, when the whole fiasco breaks out, you make a video being enraged that the CPU is hitting 1.6 volts and that that's what causes degradation. Since you already knew beforehand, why didn't you report this beforehand?

The above is a true story.

4) If the majority of the CPUs are still fine (which most likely is the case) and with the extended warranty + the August fix, no, i don't think there is a reason to recall.

 

[SunMaster]

1) Yes, although that applies to zen 4 as well. Maybe not as massively , but it's still massively overvolted and overclocked. No way in hell i'd be running either a 14900k or a 7950x stock out of the box. The only saving grace that the 7950x has is that's it's hard to cool, so it thermal throttles right before it is able to hit those crazy clockspeeds and wattages. Intel has the "drawback" of being easy to cool so even a 40$ air cooler can push it to 300 watts+.

It applies to zen4 as well? Really.

Let me help you state what is extremely obvious to everyone else :

Intel 13th and 14th gen self destruct, whereas - as far as we know - Zen 4 does not.

It's a flawed design that was rushed out to compete with zen 4, and Intel overreached. What is happening now is proof of that.

 

[YSCCC]

1) Yes, although that applies to zen 4 as well. Maybe not as massively , but it's still massively overvolted and overclocked. No way in hell i'd be running either a 14900k or a 7950x stock out of the box. The only saving grace that the 7950x has is that's it's hard to cool, so it thermal throttles right before it is able to hit those crazy clockspeeds and wattages. Intel has the "drawback" of being easy to cool so even a 40$ air cooler can push it to 300 watts+.

2) Yes

3) It's everyones fault, reviewers included. I've been saying this way before this fiasco, that reviewers should always test with sane power limits. That will put an end to both intel / amd the mobo manafacturers pushing crazy wattages and voltages to win.

Fun fact, say you are a reviewer. You test the CPU, you see it hitting 1.6 volts, you don't report any of that and life goes on. 2 years later, when the whole fiasco breaks out, you make a video being enraged that the CPU is hitting 1.6 volts and that that's what causes degradation. Since you already knew beforehand, why didn't you report this beforehand?

The above is a true story.

4) If the majority of the CPUs are still fine (which most likely is the case) and with the extended warranty + the August fix, no, i don't think there is a reason to recall.

1) That alone is a show stopper, as far as public, general consumer use cases, it's only the RPL and if you count, the Zen 4 X3D with asus mobo in early days have this issue to a point that the CPU can't stay stable and working as to the rates of ppl complaining instability on web is to enraged level

2) Even more a show stopper as a product, it's like selling a road car but you need to be a garage technician to even drive it to not breaking down early

3) Coz the reviewers need to trust the chip maker isn't going to release a chip that will request unsafe power. They have warned it is very hot from get go, but if they have sound proof that the requested voltage which may show as max VID within a fraction of a second, and averaging in 1.3v during the unlimited power cinebench will be a problem, they are press, not semiconductor engineer, if a reviewer comes out day 1 saying the 6ghz boost is simply stupid and will kill your CPU, or the 1.5v transient will definitely burn your CPU, guess will Intel sue them? "any tech savy should know it is unsafe" isn't something you can used to defend in a lawsuit

4) Majority (>50%) of CPUs should be still fine, but exposed to the quick degradation even at office work for 2 years isn't good enough for RMA only solution, especially those symptoms, like continuous driver installation fail, or a game crashing showing "not enough V ram" message, won't point to the CPU for anyone but they geeks who watched those evil techtubers or tech news. More ofthen than not they will just assume it's the game's fault and stop playing it, just using it for other stuffs until it can't boot, that isn't good enough.
To this point, it is to regain consumer trust and having a hard lesson to not release such a product.

 

[YSCCC]

It applies to zen4 as well? Really.

Let me help you state what is extremely obvious to everyone else :

Intel 13th and 14th gen self destruct, whereas - as far as we know - Zen 4 does not.

It's a flawed design that was rushed out to compete with zen 4, and Intel overreached. What is happening now is proof of that.

Actually I kinda hope intel will try tell the class action lawsuit judge similar points... then likely even outside the US, we can have a full recall or even free next gen to upgrade as a punishment terms... Or I can keep the still working 14900k and wait 10 years to auction it as "the infamous self destruct final i9 which still survived"

 

[TheHerald]

Zen 4 does not.

Anymore. It did a lot of self destructing. Literally. Intel will stop this month with the upcoming patch.

But since zen 4 doesn't self destruct, then I guess Puget is also paid by Intel, alongside Adobe. Right?

 

[SunMaster]

Anymore. It did a lot of self destructing. Literally. Intel will stop this month with the upcoming patch.

But since zen 4 doesn't self destruct, then I guess Puget is also paid by Intel, alongside Adobe. Right?

It didn't self destruct, they did so due to bios settings. Thankfully ;

1) AMD ackowledged that it happened
2) Found a solution
3) Distributed the solution to the motherboard vendors
4) Reimbursed the damaged 7800x3d/7950x3ds.

From the stories about damaged processors started to appear until the fix was issued we're talking a few weeks.
Most people can spot the difference here.

 

[redgarl]

Hi folks,

I am the author mentioned in the latest Gamer's Nexus video.

Matt and I already discussed the misunderstanding regarding his removed comment, and I had considered the matter settled. I was caught off guard when I saw how Steve took the incident out of context and misrepresented my actions. Anyone who thinks I am censoring criticism on /r/Intel is mistaken - and at the very least, hasn't actually visisted or looked at the subreddit lately. If they had, they'd know /r/Intel has been on fire with critical threads in the past few months as Intel has utterly fumbled their response to the instability in their CPUs.

In regards to conflicts of interest - after the pitchforks have settled, if y'all truly believe that my position as a moderator is a conflict of interest I am not opposed to stepping down. I have no interest in moderating a community which doesn't want me around.

But I think if you look at my Reddit history, you'll realize it would be a loss for the subreddits that I am an active moderator in. I am very "libertarian" with my approach to moderation and free speech, and if I left I'd likely be replaced with someone with a less laissez faire approach to moderating.

As an engineer and someone who is a professional, the question is not about a conflict of interest, the question is about the APPEARANCE of being in conflict of interest.

You cannot work for a site doing reviews and being part of a subreddit part covering one manufacturer. On that, Steve is 100% right and that's the reason why he doesn't accept any kind of financial support from any companies for any events.

Like it or not, it just demonstrate a BIAS. Basically, you need to choose one or the other, so choose which one is more important for you.

 

[TheHerald]

It didn't self destruct, they did so due to bios settings. Thankfully ;

So they did self destruct. Because of the bios settings. Just like intel.

1) AMD ackowledged that it happened
2) Found a solution
3) Distributed the solution to the motherboard vendors
4) Reimbursed the damaged 7800x3d/7950x3ds.

From the stories about damaged processors started to appear until the fix was issued we're talking a few weeks.
Most people can spot the difference here.

1)Intel ackowledged that it happened
2) Found a solution, coming out in 1-2 weeks
3) See above
4) Reimbursed the damaged chips and extended the warranty for an extra 2 years

 

[YSCCC]

So they did self destruct. Because of the bios settings. Just like intel.


1)Intel ackowledged that it happened
2) Found a solution, coming out in 1-2 weeks
3) See above
4) Reimbursed the damaged chips and extended the warranty for an extra 2 years

Quick search in intel offical forum about 13900k frequent crash

https://community.intel.com/t5/Proc...-and/m-p/1527297#M65490?wapkw=13900k unstable

That was from Sept 2023, and the problem is acknoledged for unlimited PL appears in... May 2024 and the microcode patch is announced still waiting to arrive... maybe our week is different

 

[redgarl]

Thanks for joining our forums today — welcome. We do have a freelancer who mods at the R/Intel and R/Hardware forums, but that work is not at the behest of, or affiliated with, Tom's Hardware as an organization.

And yes, Tom's Hardware is an enthusiast website, so it isn't uncommon for our writers to be active members of the enthusiast community. However, I am not aware of any other staff or freelancers that moderate R/Intel or other reddit subforums.

Albert reviews CPU coolers and SSD coolers, and also does our thermal paste testing. He does not review CPUs or any other products from either Intel or AMD. He also does not write news or any other editorial content outside of those cooler reviews and TIM testing. We purchase his reviews from him, and I think he does damn fine work. I see no reason to change the relationship.

As always, it's best to hear the story from the horse's mouth, rather than statements made without any perspective. Here's Albert's statement on the matter (you'll have to click through to see the image):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819618929322447291

View: https://x.com/ultrawide219/status/1819618929322447291

Yeah, I am just buying it... (Pun intended)

No but seriously Paul, how can we take anything from toms mouth seriously? You were caught in the past to do just exactly this with Nvidia.

By the way, instead of showing Field's failure for AMD, you just take Puget words for it... which you guys have a bad tendencies to do. It tarnished this outlet reputation through the years.

Not to mention that Epic and other games studios clearly mentioned that switching to AMD solved the issues, and their numbers they categorize as CPU failures are way above what Puget claim.

Not to mention that Puget use cases are different.

I am not sure what the intent of this article was. In the end, you are only saying that Puget told you AMD failure are more important, without having real numbers to draw conclusion from the whole Common Operating Picture (COP), which is what we would expect from your publication.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

So they did self destruct. Because of the bios settings. Just like intel.


1)Intel ackowledged that it happened
2) Found a solution, coming out in 1-2 weeks
3) See above
4) Reimbursed the damaged chips and extended the warranty for an extra 2 years

Intel have acknowledged the fault is in the cpu. The AMD CPUs were being overdriven by the motherboard. The limits specified (not recommended) by AMD were enforced and the problem was resolved. Customers had their CPUs replaced in a timely manner.

So,
1. intel have FINALLY acknowledged that the problem root cause lays within the microcode.
2. After a (conservative estimate) period procrastinating, deflecting and denying for over 8 months the fix will be available within a fortnight.
3. How the fix will be applied has not been stated, if it has I missed the announcement.
4. The extended warranty/rma effectiveness will be seen over the next 2 years. I hope they don’t screw it up.