News Threadripper 7000 is the most reliable CPU as per Puget Systems stats — Nvidia RTX Ada Generation GPUs have lowest failure rates

[Admin]

Puget Systems just released its list of most reliable PC parts in 2024.

Threadripper 7000 is the most reliable CPU as per Puget Systems stats — Nvidia RTX Ada Generation GPUs have lowest failure rates : Read more

 

[dalek1234]

Given that Intel CPUs like to burn up, it makes sense that AMD ones are more reliable by default.

 

[spongiemaster]

Even better was the ASUS GeForce RTX 40-Series TUF, with a perfect track record (a 0% failure rate) after hundreds of GPUs sold.

Guess we need to give kudos to TUF users who seem to know how to plug in a power cable.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Given that Intel CPUs like to burn up, it makes sense that AMD ones are more reliable by default.

I’ve only really seen AMD CPUs actually burn up or even explode. You can find many articles and videos on it if you like. Actually reminded me of a throwback to an old school TomsHardware article.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365-6.html


Anyway, the fact that this builder has a whole system failure rate higher than 1% in the first 5 years is just crazy. We have just under 10 thousand Dell fixed workstations (not including our mobile notebooks/tablets) that get used in a variety of environments. We order them with a 5 year warranty and cycle them out in batches quarterly just as they reach the end of there service dates. Various models all with Intel Core and Xeon processors. In a whole year we might have 5-10 service calls to Dell for repairs on these and it’s usually the motherboard or RAM and also the power supply but less so. Maybe had one failed CPU in the last 3 years. The system was about 4 years old and the motherboard died as well. There are also drive failures of course, but we handle those in house since the old drives have to be destroyed. Luckily this dropped considerably with the switch to SSDs some years back, although 1-2 still fail per year.

The point being that this builder might want to keep its own realized failure rates to itself. Not a very inspiring look.

 

[wakuwaku]

The point being that this builder might want to keep its own realized failure rates to itself. Not a very inspiring look.

You must be new to this industry. I am sorry but the reality is majority of small and medium sized companies that purchase workstations from low volume SIs like Puget value transparency as much as as giant corporations. Except because they are, you know, LOW VOLUME, the only way to get meaningful statistical information on reliability is to have regular public reports on their overall experience with the parts that they choose to sell pooled together from their overall sales during that period. Without this transparency, we smaller companies cannot make informed decisions on what to buy and who to buy from, and also our employees cannot have a peace of mind if they keep thinking "oh shit i don't know when my stuff will break down". Get out of your man cave and come back to reality please.

 

[Thunder64]

I’ve only really seen AMD CPUs actually burn up or even explode. You can find many articles and videos on it if you like. Actually reminded me of a throwback to an old school TomsHardware article.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365-6.html


Anyway, the fact that this builder has a whole system failure rate higher than 1% in the first 5 years is just crazy. We have just under 10 thousand Dell fixed workstations (not including our mobile notebooks/tablets) that get used in a variety of environments. We order them with a 5 year warranty and cycle them out in batches quarterly just as they reach the end of there service dates. Various models all with Intel Core and Xeon processors. In a whole year we might have 5-10 service calls to Dell for repairs on these and it’s usually the motherboard or RAM and also the power supply but less so. Maybe had one failed CPU in the last 3 years. The system was about 4 years old and the motherboard died as well. There are also drive failures of course, but we handle those in house since the old drives have to be destroyed. Luckily this dropped considerably with the switch to SSDs some years back, although 1-2 still fail per year.

The point being that this builder might want to keep its own realized failure rates to itself. Not a very inspiring look.

LOL crapping on AMD for a 25 year old thing that might happen back then in the worst case scenario and thinking it is relevant to today. How many 13 and 14 gen Intel chips have failed? They couldn't even do a recall because they didn't have nearly enough chips to replace faulty ones. Stop being a biased person.

 

[TerryLaze]

Given that Intel CPUs like to burn up, it makes sense that AMD ones are more reliable by default.

That's not what puget is saying......
Professional CPUs have very little to do with the ones we get on desktop.

Intel's 13th and 14th gen had higher failure rates than intel historically had, but 11th gen is way higher as an outlier and 13/14 is still lower failure rate than amd desktop5/7000 cpus which are, according to many amd fans in this forum, failed server cpus after all.

Puget Systems' Perspective on Intel CPU Instability Issues

You may have heard about instability issues with Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors. The issue has been gaining more attention as time goes on. I am posting to share what we've experienced here at Puget Systems, and what we're doing about it.

www.pugetsystems.com

 

[TerryLaze]

How many 13 and 14 gen Intel chips have failed?

How many have failed?!
Not somebody complaining that their overclock isn't stable anymore, how many have really failed?

 

[TerryLaze]

LOL crapping on AMD for a 25 year old thing that might happen back then in the worst case scenario and thinking it is relevant to today.

Previous generation of ryzen. One year ago, not 25.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiTngvvD5dI

 

[araghur12]

Previous generation of ryzen. One year ago, not 25.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiTngvvD5dI

I mean, I know you're a fanboy and feel the need to defend your favorite poor little multibillion semiconductor behemoth, but at least try not to lie (I know, it's hard when you're categorically wrong, but at least try).
Five seconds is the time it took me to look into the video and see it was a faulty motherboard configuration that cooked the CPU. Not the silicon being systematically screwed like in Intel 13th and 14th generation.
Misconfigured motherboards isn't a new thing, in fact very recently Intel had to reign in on the OEMs for using power limits way above their specification, thus risking damage like in the case above.

 

[Thunder64]

Previous generation of ryzen. One year ago, not 25.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiTngvvD5dI

You have to be the biggest Intel shill I know and quite honestly it is annoying. That was a rare occurance and was fixed almost immediately. Intel knew they were sending out broken chips for a year or more and just hoped no one we be any wiser. They couldn't compete with AMD so they juiced their chips too much for reviews. The days of Intel "rebates" to ODM's and contra-revenue are over. They have been stepping on rakes for years now.

 

[passivecool]

The point being that this builder might want to keep its own realized failure rates to itself. Not a very inspiring look.

It appears that you do not understand what kind of systems puget is selling, to whom, for what usage scenario.

You are comparing a cherry to a watermelon and sayin' yours got less seeds.