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

[Guardians Bane]

You know, pugets CPU failure rates seems incredibly high for all CPUs, In my experience, it's extremely unusual for a CPU to fail. I have in fact never experienced a cpu fail despite my experience with many hundred machines. CPU failure measured in percentages? I don't for a second believe they're measuring what we believe they are.

Let me turn your argument against you.

If intel had higher failure rate then why doesn't it show on pugets numbers? The other people that are screaming about Intel are and seems always will be amd lovers. They push amd. So naturally they defend amd and make intel seem like the big bad monster

I sound absolutely ridiculous don't I? That's what I thought, hope you got the point.

Once again, Puget Systems says they're expecting higher return rates. Do you just read what you want and ignore the rest?

I'll post a quote from Puget in regards to Intel's CPUs again for you.

"The most concerning part of all of this to us here at Puget Systems is the rise in the number of failures in the field, which we haven't seen this high since 11th Gen. We're seeing ALL of these failures happen after 6 months, which means we do expect elevated failure rates to continue for the foreseeable future and possibly even after Intel issues the microcode patch.

Based on this information, we are definitely experiencing CPU failures higher than our historical average, especially."

So, as you see, even Puget acknowledges the fact that Intel failures are rising fast. AND guess why?

Oh, I forgot... Intel told us why.

All you do is try to defend Intel but you got nothing. NOTHING! Your trying so hard to cover up what's going on but you just don't have reality to back you up.

 

[Gururu]

Once again, Puget Systems says they're expecting higher return rates. Do you just read what you want and ignore the rest?

I'll post a quote from Puget in regards to Intel's CPUs again for you.

"The most concerning part of all of this to us here at Puget Systems is the rise in the number of failures in the field, which we haven't seen this high since 11th Gen. We're seeing ALL of these failures happen after 6 months, which means we do expect elevated failure rates to continue for the foreseeable future and possibly even after Intel issues the microcode patch.

Based on this information, we are definitely experiencing CPU failures higher than our historical average, especially."

So, as you see, even Puget acknowledges the fact that Intel failures are rising fast. AND guess why?

Oh, I forgot... Intel told us why.

All you do is try to defend Intel but you got nothing. NOTHING! Your trying so hard to cover up what's going on but you just don't have reality to back you up.

I disagree with the fear mongering about the issue when it remains a rather miniscule issue affecting a niche population of users. Why make a mountain out of a molehill is my question. If you had a CPU failure and Intel is giving you the run around on an RMA, then you indeed have my sympathy. I support you! But honestly, I feel that this is the most relevant quote from Puget:

"While the number of failures we are experiencing is definitely higher than our historical average, it is difficult to classify 5-7 failures a month in the field as a huge issue, and it is definitely a lower rate of failure than we are hearing about from others in the industry. The recent spike in 14th Gen failure rates stands out mostly because how incredibly low historical CPU failure rates tend to be."

So I don't think a panic is in order. Rather calm and collection to ensure that our own investment in the product remains intact with plenty of lifetime ahead of it. Sure, next time I may pick up an AMD, but right now I got what I got and I'm going to try my best to use it to the best of its ability...because it still works. 😛

 

[Guardians Bane]

I disagree with the fear mongering about the issue when it remains a rather miniscule issue affecting a niche population of users. Why make a mountain out of a molehill is my question. If you had a CPU failure and Intel is giving you the run around on an RMA, then you indeed have my sympathy. I support you! But honestly, I feel that this is the most relevant quote from Puget:

"While the number of failures we are experiencing is definitely higher than our historical average, it is difficult to classify 5-7 failures a month in the field as a huge issue, and it is definitely a lower rate of failure than we are hearing about from others in the industry. The recent spike in 14th Gen failure rates stands out mostly because how incredibly low historical CPU failure rates tend to be."

So I don't think a panic is in order. Rather calm and collection to ensure that our own investment in the product remains intact with plenty of lifetime ahead of it. Sure, next time I may pick up an AMD, but right now I got what I got and I'm going to try my best to use it to the best of its ability...because it still works. 😛

I agree with the fear mongering. In the same release by Puget they also go on to say
"The most concerning part of all of this to us here at Puget Systems is the rise in the number of failures in the field, which we haven't seen this high since 11th Gen. We're seeing ALL of these failures happen after 6 months, which means we do expect elevated failure rates to continue for the foreseeable future and possibly even after Intel issues the microcode patch.

Based on this information, we are definitely experiencing CPU failures higher than our historical average, especially"

And it is not just a niche thing. The oxidation is all encompassing. Even Intel admitted this. And yes I know so far it seems to affect diy consumers more than the general public running OEM systems. But that is because diy consumers are more apt to push the CPU a bit harder.
BUT.. And this is the main issue, These CPUs are degrading faster than normal. It will take longer for the general public to really start seeing problems. Because of the fact that they plug and play. But don't get it wrong, those CPUs are also at high risk of oxidation and degradation faster than what is normally happening.

I don't like people who are spreading misinformation on the issue. There's people who outright deny and lie to others about the facts currently and mislead people who really wouldn't know better. This "Mountain" isn't a molehill. And I tell themselves have acknowledges this and that's why they have extended their warranty period.

I also agree with you that panic is not inorder. And some calm level communication and fact sharing is the best course of action. And also, I think Intel should make all this information public on mainstream media. But just facts and what's being done to fix the issues. Not spreading misinformation and and seeing fanboys form each side trying to make the issue so much bigger or smaller than it is.

I think if Intel went mainstream with the oxidation and degradation issues and they were able to at the same time give information about possible fixes and warranty information for RMAs, that it wouldn't cause a huge backlash. Conversely, I see it helping to show the public that they admitt an issue and are giving multiple ways of an easy resolution and fix. It would back up Intel's statement that they are continuing to support their customers and will work with them to make them feel like they can still trust and appreciate their Intel based systems.

Fyi.... I take no sides in this issue. I don't geek out over AMD or Intel. I want them both to be as successful as possible. I geek out over tech in general.

Also, I also know I'm not as smart as Intel's marketing and Public relations teams. So I'm not going to pretend my ideas for public resolution are what they should do. It's just a quick idea I just share.

 

[YSCCC]

I disagree with the fear mongering about the issue when it remains a rather miniscule issue affecting a niche population of users. Why make a mountain out of a molehill is my question. If you had a CPU failure and Intel is giving you the run around on an RMA, then you indeed have my sympathy. I support you! But honestly, I feel that this is the most relevant quote from Puget:

I don't agree on this either, it's all about consumer rights and consequenses, not some random loyal defendants. The problem is, those who know how to RMA and self trouble shoot are far and few among all the intels sold, even for i9s as I would argue, most of not dominating most are buying prebuilt, built by a friend who knows how to build a PC, or even self learning in the progress with their hard earned money.

And this time around it's not very apparent symptoms like the 7800X3D melting or windows crashing with message of "CPU error". Even for those who are moor geeky have had trouble identifying that it is indeed CPU instability rather than a ton of other easier to fail stuffs like memory. Guess what those who kindly help out friends to build PC need to deal with? they arn't even earning anything or have spare parts to let those affected friends have a working PC during the RMA process, and they need to on behalf of their friends, do all the RMAs... Don't forget Puget have a more conservative than Intel specified performance profile tuning, which, 99% of buyers won't buy an expensive CPU just to downclock it.

And just looking at the announced extra warranty news comments, how many 65W+ CPU users like the 13500 with some recent crashes, though it's not a RPL die, is same 13th gen and ppl just got confused and suffered for this whole mess.

 

[TheHerald]

Once again, Puget Systems says they're expecting higher return rates. Do you just read what you want and ignore the rest?

I'll post a quote from Puget in regards to Intel's CPUs again for you.

"The most concerning part of all of this to us here at Puget Systems is the rise in the number of failures in the field, which we haven't seen this high since 11th Gen. We're seeing ALL of these failures happen after 6 months, which means we do expect elevated failure rates to continue for the foreseeable future and possibly even after Intel issues the microcode patch.

Based on this information, we are definitely experiencing CPU failures higher than our historical average, especially."

So, as you see, even Puget acknowledges the fact that Intel failures are rising fast. AND guess why?

Oh, I forgot... Intel told us why.

All you do is try to defend Intel but you got nothing. NOTHING! Your trying so hard to cover up what's going on but you just don't have reality to back you up.

Wait, isn't puget defending intel? Aren't they lying?

 

[Guardians Bane]

I don't agree on this either, it's all about consumer rights and consequenses, not some random loyal defendants. The problem is, those who know how to RMA and self trouble shoot are far and few among all the intels sold, even for i9s as I would argue, most of not dominating most are buying prebuilt, built by a friend who knows how to build a PC, or even self learning in the progress with their hard earned money.

And this time around it's not very apparent symptoms like the 7800X3D melting or windows crashing with message of "CPU error". Even for those who are moor geeky have had trouble identifying that it is indeed CPU instability rather than a ton of other easier to fail stuffs like memory. Guess what those who kindly help out friends to build PC need to deal with? they arn't even earning anything or have spare parts to let those affected friends have a working PC during the RMA process, and they need to on behalf of their friends, do all the RMAs... Don't forget Puget have a more conservative than Intel specified performance profile tuning, which, 99% of buyers won't buy an expensive CPU just to downclock it.

And just looking at the announced extra warranty news comments, how many 65W+ CPU users like the 13500 with some recent crashes, though it's not a RPL die, is same 13th gen and ppl just got confused and suffered for this whole mess.

Exactly, and not to mention certain people who are commonly on Intel failure based threads, use Puget Systems results to equate to the rest of the world, when infact they're a very small portion of the worlds 13-14 gen users. Also... Puget released a good article describing how their rates for Intel failures are actually on the rise and they're prepared to thoroughly test the microcode before they release it to customers. AND... they also are quoted as saying they actually DO anticipate and expect the failures to start rising (also they said it already has begun) quickly.

But of course the Intel fanboys conveniently leave that stuff out when saying Intel's degradation and failures aren't all that much of an issue.

 

[Guardians Bane]

Wait, isn't puget defending intel? Aren't they lying?

Just quit already. Intel's CPUs in the 13-14 gen are experiencing a fast rise in failure rates and degradation issues. Intel said as much.

You can change the subject all you want and spout misinformation all you want. But you only have your feelings to back you up.

 

[TheHerald]

Just quit already. Intel's CPUs in the 13-14 gen are experiencing a fast rise in failure rates and degradation issues. Intel said as much.

You can change the subject all you want and spout misinformation all you want. But you only have your feelings to back you up.

Nobody said they aren't. You are too myopic into your reading to understand my point.

I'm saying - that as long as you stick to Intels defaults / stock / whatever you wanna call them settings - the problem goes away. If you don't stick to intels defaults, this is what happens

I find surprising that the 14900kf is so much higher than the 14900k. Also 12100f, what the hell?

 

[slightnitpick]

All you do is try to defend Intel but you got nothing. NOTHING!

I invented the piano key necktie! I invented it! What have you done Derek? Nothing! You've done NOTHING! - Mugatu, from the movie Zoolander

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx9O6q0pDAU

 

[YSCCC]

Nobody said they aren't. You are too myopic into your reading to understand my point.

I'm saying - that as long as you stick to Intels defaults / stock / whatever you wanna call them settings - the problem goes away. If you don't stick to intels defaults, this is what happens

They delayed, not goes away, Puget don't even dare to say they are safe at this point and expects the failure rate to rise further with time

 

[TheHerald]

They delayed, not goes away, Puget don't even dare to say they are safe at this point and expects the failure rate to rise further with time

It's already been 2 years man, look at their 13th gen numbers. They are still within reason, are they not?

 

[bit_user]

It's already been 2 years man, look at their 13th gen numbers. They are still within reason, are they not?

I'm still waiting for you to show us what the failure rate looks like vs. time. What's the shape of the curve?

Neither of us knows, but I expect it looks somewhat like a hockey stick.

 

[YSCCC]

It's already been 2 years man, look at their 13th gen numbers. They are still within reason, are they not?

By monthly intel failure results, they showed that since release of 13900k on nov, 2022, they mostly failed on shop until May, 2023, roughly half year mark and then all in a sudden, between Jun 2023 and Nov 2023 where 14900k arrives, are almost all shop failures, which shows a trend of chip degradation to a point they fail and clients asked for RMA, and since 14th gen, the spike in numbers since May 2024 of failure per month surpassed the monthly failure of the 11th gen CPUs from May 2021 to Jan 2022, which showed 7% failure rate as opposed to the 4.x% AMD and 2.x% 12-14th gen, and puget expected it to rise further by time, by this it doesn't seem like they are actually any better than 11th gen, except maybe the 11th gen products from Puget didn't sell well, so low denominator makes higher failure rate. And since we don't know the monthly sale numbers of each system plus most degradation early symptoms likely don't appear in what Puget buyers will be running (UE5 or game servers per say), it is hardly a reason to say, they are fine.

 

[Thunder64]

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...

Not a valid comparison because they did not test AMD with lower wattage. Intel drops like a rock with lower wattage but AMD is more gradual. They seemed to have learned their lesson by dropping TDP's on all but they flagship.

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?

And how long has Intel been sitting on this? They claim they won't lose performance but I find that hard to believe. Zen 4 X3D was resolved quickly. Intel did good by extending the warranty but really should have issued a recall. Every RPL CPU 65W+ is potentially effected. That's a disastor.

 

[TheHerald]

Not a valid comparison because they did not test AMD with lower wattage. Intel drops like a rock with lower wattage but AMD is more gradual. They seemed to have learned their lesson by dropping TDP's on all but they flagship.

Of course it's a valid comparison and of course they did test amd with lower wattage. The 7950x 3d and the 7800x 3d are the lower wattage parts. What are you talking about?

The anandtech link you posted is completely flawed - even the reviewer himself says so on page 3. The 7950x was pulling a lot more power than what it was restricted at. This is a quote from the review you posted

Starting with the peak power figures, it's worth noting that AMD's figures can be wide off the mark even when restricting the Package Power Tracking (PPT)
in the firmware. For example, restricting the socket and 7950X to 125 W yielded a measured power consumption that was still a whopping 33% higher

And how long has Intel been sitting on this? They claim they won't lose performance but I find that hard to believe. Zen 4 X3D was resolved quickly. Intel did good by extending the warranty but really should have issued a recall. Every RPL CPU 65W+ is potentially effected. That's a disastor.

If they had issued a recall people would just find another reason to complain. What would a recall solve that a 5 year warranty doesn't? Please, explain to me cause apparently im not the sharpest knife in the kitchen.

 

[bit_user]

Not a valid comparison because they did not test AMD with lower wattage. Intel drops like a rock with lower wattage but AMD is more gradual. They seemed to have learned their lesson by dropping TDP's on all but they flagship.

TheHerald is conveniently disregarding how TechPowerUp's multi-application average mixes together lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded apps. Since lightly-threaded apps aren't primarily TDP-limited in the first place, lowering the limit to 125 W has little effect on them and they pull up the average. This makes it not a proper way to compare efficiency on the most computationally-taxing workloads, which is when efficiency matters most.

In contrast, if you look at a proper multi-threaded composite, it turns out that Ryzen 7950X does very well at 125 W.

​

We've been through this about a dozen times before, but it seems Harold keeps forgetting.

 

[TheHerald]

TheHerald is conveniently disregarding how TechPowerUp's multi-application average mixes together lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded apps. Since lightly-threaded apps aren't primarily TDP-limited in the first place, lowering the limit to 125 W has little effect on them and they pull up the average. This makes it not a proper way to compare efficiency on the most computationally-taxing workloads, which is when efficiency matters most.

In contrast, if you look at a proper multi-threaded composite, it turns out that Ryzen 7950X does very well at 125 W.

​

​

We've been through this about a dozen times before, but it seems Harold keeps forgetting.

Can you explain to me exactly what I was forgetting? Guy claimed that Intel only wins on adobe in lower wattage cause adobe is being paid by Intel. I showed that Intel is winning in 25 other workloads that are not adobe, therefore his argument is just wrong. So please, go ahead, explain to me what exactly am i forgetting or missing. Don't change the subject, don't dodge, just address it. Thank you

EG1. That's besides the point but your graph shows Intel dominating in perf / watt on every price point. Contrary to popular opinion

 

[bit_user]

I showed that Intel is winning in 25 other workloads that are not adobe,

Then why even mention the 125 W data point? It's a distraction. You could just link to the i9-14900K's benchmarks without going onto yet another tangent about TDP and efficiency. As soon as you inject that into the conversation, it becomes yet another point of contention as if you're trying to bog down the conversation instead of arrive at an answer to the point currently under contention.

I think the Adobe performance data is adequately explained by two factors:

1. You can tell Puget's Adobe benchmarks aren't heavily-threaded, and Raptor Lake tends to outperform Ryzen 7000 on lightly-threaded workloads.
2. Adobe Premier and Aftereffects also benefit from Intel's Quick Sync video.

I'm not saying there aren't other possible factors, but once I saw those two details, the performance discrepancy seemed plausible enough to me.

 

[TheHerald]

Then why even mention the 125 W data point? It's a distraction.

???

Because that's exactly what I was asked to do? This is the post I was responding to

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.

So I showed that at safe settings they win in a lot more than just adobe. I didn't even mention efficiency at all. I literally didn't mention efficiency even once in that post and you are claiming I wen't into a tangent about efficiency? LOL man, just admit you were wrong and let's move on.

I think the Adobe performance data is adequately explained by two factors:

1. You can tell Puget's Adobe benchmarks aren't heavily-threaded, and Raptor Lake tends to outperform Ryzen 7000 on lightly-threaded workloads.
2. Adobe Premier and Aftereffects also benefit from Intel's Quick Sync video.

I'm not saying there aren't other possible factors, but once I saw those two details, the performance discrepancy seemed plausible enough to me.

And that's EXACTLY what I explained to the guy claiming intel is paying adobe.

 

[bit_user]

???

Because that's exactly what I was asked to do? This is post I was responding to

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.

So I showed that at safe settings they win in a lot more than just adobe. I didn't even mention efficiency at all. I literally didn't mention efficiency even once in that post and you are claiming I wen't into a tangent about efficiency? LOL man, just admit you were wrong and let's move on.

Again, I would recommend just linking to the official i9-14900K review, because TechPowerUp includes stock settings in their benchmarks. For the i9-14900K, that's PL1=125W and I'm not sure exactly what Tau (28 sec? 56?), but certainly not unlimited. It's basically what Puget has been shipping to their customers.

P.S. people should understand that sometimes a workload just favors one CPU or the other. Maybe its branching behavior is handled better by one branch predictor or its data access patterns are handled by one CPU's prefetcher. There doesn't necessarily have to be anything nefarious going on.

Also, Golden/Raptor Cove is just bigger & more complex cores than Zen 4, with deeper reorder buffers, bigger physical register files, deeper load/store queues, etc. For lightly-threaded tasks, that tends to give Raptor Lake an advantage.

AMD’s Zen 4 Part 1: Frontend and Execution Engine

AMD’s Zen 4 architecture has been hotly anticipated by many in the tech sphere; as a result many rumors were floating around about its performance gains prior to its release.

chipsandcheese.com

 

[TheHerald]

Again, I would recommend just linking to the official i9-14900K review, because TechPowerUp includes stock settings in their benchmarks. For the i9-14900K, that's PL1=125W and I'm not sure exactly what Tau (28 sec? 56?), but certainly not unlimited. But, it's basically what Puget has been shipping to their customers.

I did that at the start, guy came back with "these are unsafe settings", so I linked some "safe" settings. Again, read the entire post. Tell me how many times you read the word efficiency in there and if that number is 0, explain to me how i went into a tangent about efficiency while never mentioning it...

 

[Thunder64]

Of course it's a valid comparison and of course they did test amd with lower wattage. The 7950x 3d and the 7800x 3d are the lower wattage parts. What are you talking about?

The anandtech link you posted is completely flawed - even the reviewer himself says so on page 3. The 7950x was pulling a lot more power than what it was restricted at. This is a quote from the review you posted

Starting with the peak power figures, it's worth noting that AMD's figures can be wide off the mark even when restricting the Package Power Tracking (PPT)
in the firmware. For example, restricting the socket and 7950X to 125 W yielded a measured power consumption that was still a whopping 33% higher

If they had issued a recall people would just find another reason to complain. What would a recall solve that a 5 year warranty doesn't? Please, explain to me cause apparently im not the sharpest knife in the kitchen.

We've been this before. Zen 4 nearly matches or beats RPL at 65W vs 125W. Meanwhile the Zen 4 uses 50W less.

 

[bit_user]

I did that at the start, guy came back with "these are unsafe settings", so I linked some "safe" settings. Again, read the entire post. Tell me how many times you read the word efficiency in there and if that number is 0, explain to me how i went into a tangent about efficiency while never mentioning it...

We don't have a definitive answer on what's safe. So, I'd stick with stock settings, for the time being. That also seems most appropriate, in the context of Puget benchmarks.

The (hopefully) final word "safe" settings will have to wait until Intel releases its promised microcode.

 

[TheHerald]

We've been this before. Zen 4 nearly matches or beats RPL at 65W vs 125W. Meanwhile the Zen 4 uses 50W less.

No, it doesn't. The 7950x at 65w doesn't beat or match a 13900k at 125w. That's a lie.

 

[bit_user]

No, it doesn't. The 7950x at 65w doesn't beat or match a 13900k at 125w. That's a lie.

See? Now you're completely derailed from the Adobe benchmarks.

I'd suggest trying to stay focused on one question/issue without opening others (to the extent possible).