this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
22 points (78.9% liked)

PC Gaming

8209 readers
454 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
22
Puget says its Intel CPU failure rate is lower than AMD Ryzen failures — system builder releases failure rate data, cites conservative power settings (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 month ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So far. Absolute failure rates is chips that are clearly non-functional and returned, so the builder is able to country it. The issue with the Intel chips is an inherent flaw that seems to affect all the chips but only manifests when the chip is pushed beyond a certain point. And up to now people have for example been blaming poorly coded software, while Intel gas been downplaying the issue.

This is an apples and oranges situation - its not about the absolute failure rate of chips which always occurs; this appears to be a fundamental additional issue for Intel's chips that people may not even realise they have been experiencing.