Puget Systems Releases CPU Failure Report: AMD CPUs Achieve Higher Failure Rate Than Intel 13th and 14th Generation (2024)

May I ask someone who can dig this information up please?

I just wondered how long the warranty period or bring in time is for that hardware?

I doubt someone bring in a device which costs your own money to fix. I assume that 10th/11th Generation Intel is long out of warranty. That's why it does not show up anymore in 2023 / 2024 basically.

If it were my own 9th or 10th generation Intel platform, I would maybe sell the mainboard and the RAM and move on.

I think those graphs miss some important information. How long is the maintenance / service / warranty period for the hardware in question. (applies to all of those graphs)

Hecate91This seems like damage control from Puget, no sample size listed or what SKU's of Ryzen processors are failing.

Yes lacks context, for example might be using 10 times more AMD CPU's than Intels.

For those who seem more interested in graphs than reading the content, here's the reason for their low Intel failure rates. Puget, after the 11th gen issues, started:

developing their own power settings that don't hurt performance, they've managed to mitigate some of the stability issues plaguing other users.

In other words,

Puget Systems attributes their more modest failure rates of Intel processors to their conservative approach to power management settings.

So basically, all of the systems had Puget's own conservative power settings applied instead of the BIOS default. That's how you fabricate statistics, congratulations! :shadedshu:

the54thvoidFor those who seem more interested in graphs than reading the content, here's the reason for their low Intel failure rates. Puget, after the 11th gen issues, started:
In other words, they don't follow default motherboard settings and instead apply ones which avoid the voltage problems caused by the microcode.

I guess this means they running settings that are even more conservative than SuperMicro, who does pretty much everything by the book?
Because there are Raptor Lake CPUs that have degraded even when ran well within Intel's spec.

AsRockYes lacks context, for example might be using 10 times more AMD CPU's than Intels.

The graph uses percentages...

AusWolfSo basically, all of the systems had Puget's own conservative power settings applied instead of the BIOS default. That's how you fabricate statistics, congratulations! :shadedshu:

They follow Intel's guidelines as best as they can. That's what Intel should mandate from the start instead of auto-OCing all their CPUs from the start.

Hecate91This seems like damage control from Puget, no sample size listed or what SKU's of Ryzen processors are failing.

The timing, the fact that they had never bothered publishing failure rates before(have they?), especially when 11th gen was failing at such higher rates, does point in that direction.

napataThey follow Intel's guidelines as best as they can. That's what Intel should mandate from the start instead of auto-OCing all their CPUs from the start.

Yes, should... but they don't.

AusWolfSo basically, all of the systems had Puget's own conservative power settings applied instead of the BIOS default. That's how you help Intel's argument that the problem is with voltages only, so a firmware can fix it, congratulations! :shadedshu:

Just another theory.

the54thvoidFor those who seem more interested in graphs than reading the content, here's the reason for their low Intel failure rates. Puget, after the 11th gen issues, started:

In other words,

they don't follow default motherboard settings and instead apply ones which avoid the voltage problems caused by the microcode.

No mention of them doing the same for amd, so the comparison isn't completely fair. A portion of those failing amd cpu's could have been prevented from developing issues were they equally conservative with power settings for amd too.
side note: 11th gen seems like an absolute dumpster fire.

Hecate91The results Puget systems has aren't in line with most other sources because they aren't using the Intel baseline specs that Intel insisted was fine while the blame was thrown at motherboard makers, even though Intel knew what was happening since 2022.
I don't get why this post was made, the issue at hand is even with Puget using their own settings there is still an increase of failures in their graphs. And the whole point of GN bringing up the graph was to show higher than normal failure rates.

Don't know what the situation is on the amd side, but I can attest to intel board manufacturers pushing way more volts than needed. My 490 board applies 1.37v to stock 10700 in normal/auto modes, but the cpu only needs 1.25v manual voltage to pass stress tests.

So with 'conservative approach to power management settings', 'their own power settings' and presumably much better cooling than average (custom made workstations) - so far from default compared to most users, both prebuilt and DIY - they report comparable total failure rates to other CPUs that were on the market three or four times longer (while 14th gen degrades over time)?
Surprise, surprise. Nothing wrong with 14th gen, definitely nothing to see here, move along... /s

I'm suprised the OP does not mention Puget's other statements, like:
'The concern for the future reliability of those CPUs is much more the issue at hand, rather than the failure rates we are seeing today.'
'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.'

I dont see the issue here, the article clearly states the bios configuration was done in a safe way to keep CPU's within safe tolerances.

Puget Systems attributes their more modest failure rates of Intel processors to their conservative approach to power management settings. By adhering strictly to Intel's specifications and developing their own power settings that don't hurt performance, they've managed to mitigate some of the stability issues plaguing other users.

I do the same on my own systems. I check if board vendor has voltages out of spec (usually is the case with ASRock), I check power levels, I check if safety features are enabled and so on.

They havent claimed this is out of the box experience, it is data "after" they have applied their own adjustments.

Note the "shop" vs "field" difference. AMD CPUs fail more often in their shop when they are trying to apply their own overclocking or whatever, Intel CPUs fail more in the field ie. when used by users. AMD has a lot lower failure rates in the field, where they fail more is when Puget Systems are setting them up.

So yeah, damage control.

Ahh, Puget, the vendor that refused to use Ryzen cpus and when they finally started selling them, their “Configuration assistant “ always ended suggesting an Intel cpu.

Better yet, if their claims are true, how come nobody else experienced such a huge number of issues with their AMD cpus outside Puget?

I will admit, this intel collapse (thank you karma!) is really showing the rabid fanbois, bribed influencers and especially, the white knights which are out in full force doing damage control.

Adding the DOJ investigation on Ngreedia plus the conveniently and sudden delay on their new AI chips, the other side will also be super busy.

Meanwhile … :)

john_The timing, the fact that they had never bothered publishing failure rates before(have they?), especially when 11th gen was failing at such higher rates, does point in that direction.

Exactly, something doesn't seem right unless Puget does publish failures rates, I don't really care what their rates are as they are using different settings than what most other companies are. The timing of Puget publishing results seems like they're looking to defend Intel and trying to keep customer confidence in buying Intel systems, though them going "but AMD!!!!" seems like a deflection tactic, given how desperate Intel has gotten with changing statements after the tech press has already reported on the issues I wouldn't be surprised if there is paid damage control.
I came across some stats from Puget systems on r/hardware, Puget sold about 70-80% Intel systems in 2023.
www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/puget-systems-hardware-trends-of-2023/#CPU_Processor

napataThey follow Intel's guidelines as best as they can. That's what Intel should mandate from the start instead of auto-OCing all their CPUs from the start.

Yes they should have, but didn't and chose to push their cpu's past the limit to beat AMD, according to Buildzoid talking to someone hosting Minecraft severs with 14900K cpu's, the failure rates drop from around 30% to 5% by disabling TVB, though by disabling TVB the CPU is no longer running at the specs Intel claims its capable of but that is a whole other issue.

napataThey follow Intel's guidelines as best as they can.

We 've discussed this for numerous times already.
From Intel's own public materials
Intel only enforce minimum and max values,
The 'Recommended value' is always 'N/A'
Some even had their minimum values 'N/A'

So there is basically no 'guideline' from Intel regarding CPU voltage, anything below maximum are 'in-spec'

Hecate91Yes they should have, but didn't and chose to push their cpu's past the limit to beat AMD, according to Buildzoid talking to someone hosting Minecraft severs with 14900K cpu's, the failure rates drop from around 30% to 5% by disabling TVB, though by disabling TVB the CPU is no longer running at the specs Intel claims its capable of but that is a whole other issue.

The default settings are decided by the board vendors.

Intel's mistake was giving them the freedom to do that.

ZazigalkaDon't know what the situation is on the amd side, but I can attest to intel board manufacturers pushing way more volts than needed. My 490 board applies 1.37v to stock 10700 in normal/auto modes, but the cpu only needs 1.25v manual voltage to pass stress tests.

CPUs and GPUs needing less voltage to pass stress tests is not unusual. The oldest example I have is in my sig where I mention that I have a mobile "Core2Duo undervolted at 1.0125V down from 1.188V". Another example was my 6 core Phenom II that had a typical voltage of 1.32V for 2.8GHz and it was doing 3.5GHz with 1.28V. Going Ryzen I stopped messing with voltages, but i guess the situation is the same.
Companies push more voltage to be sure that the CPUs that will get on consumers hands will be stable. I think almost everything can be undervolted and still work just fine, except in case it is a mediocre sample.

Zazigalkaside note: 11th gen seems like an absolute dumpster fire.

And 10th gen seems like Skylake, perfected through the years.