• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Puget data suggests Intel CPUs generally were more reliable than AMD's in 2019-21 (Not Rocketlake!)

humbug said:
And hows that? Explain it then...
Click to expand...
You said they ignored 11th gen. they didnt.
You said they got their maths wrong. only one using maths was you.

Pretty simple.

Cyber-Mav said:
amd failures are all down to hardware issue with the cpus being bad. intel failures are due to user error as noted by puget.
Click to expand...

No they didnt say that? They even said at the start of the article the intention was to isolate HARDWARE errors and ignore user errors.

Puget said:
Additionally, we are filtering out of this data any failures that we believe were caused accidentally by our employees or customers, as well as those related to damage in shipping. The goal here is to isolate problems from the hardware itself, rather than human error.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting you thought you read that in the article or are you just trying to troll the AMD fanboys?

Jesus what's wrong with you lot.
 
james.miller said:
It's you doing math, not Puget. Puget said AMD were generally worse but 11th gen Intel failures were abnormally high. which is exactly what the chart shows.
Click to expand...

How can Puget make a statement of 'AMD CPUs in general had higher failure rates than Intel, but we did see an oddly high rate of failures with Intel's consumer-oriented 11th Gen processors..." without 'doing math'?

What exactly did they base their statement on if not some maths, presumably based on the graph provided?

Only way I can see that their statement matches the graph is that they basically said "Well, the Ryzen 5000 failure rate is higher than 4 of the 5 Intel rates, so win for Intel. Threadripper is higher than 3 of 5 Intel, so win Intel. Threadripper Pro is higher than 4 of 5 Intel. So that's a clean sweep for Intel"

Which is a really bizarre way to read that in my opinion.
 
SKILL said:
How can Puget make a statement of 'AMD CPUs in general had higher failure rates than Intel, but we did see an oddly high rate of failures with Intel's consumer-oriented 11th Gen processors..." without 'doing math'?
Click to expand...

That isnt what i meant and you know it. Humbug claimed puget were wrong and that they couldnt add up because intel have more failure points(thanks to 11th gen) but puget never did that sum and so there was nothing to be wrong about. they said "Generally AMD was worse" and generally yeah...they are, at least in Puget's experiance. They didnt make any other claim.
 
SKILL said:
How can Puget make a statement of 'AMD CPUs in general had higher failure rates than Intel, but we did see an oddly high rate of failures with Intel's consumer-oriented 11th Gen processors..." without 'doing math'?

What exactly did they base their statement on if not some maths, presumably based on the graph provided?

Only way I can see that their statement matches the graph is that they basically said "Well, the Ryzen 5000 failure rate is higher than 4 of the 5 Intel rates, so win for Intel. Threadripper is higher than 3 of 5 Intel, so win Intel. Threadripper Pro is higher than 4 of 5 Intel. So that's a clean sweep for Intel"

Which is a really bizarre way to read that in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Its to drive traffic to the site in a attempt to drive some sales. I’m surprised people still fall for this type of stuff.
 
james.miller said:
That isnt what i meant and you know it. Humbug claimed puget were wrong and that they couldnt add up because intel have more failure points(thanks to 11th gen) but puget never did that sum and so there was nothing to be wrong about. they said "Generally AMD was worse" and generally yeah...they are, at least in Puget's experiance. They didnt make any other claim.
Click to expand...


They're not though? The worst chip belongs to Intel, by a huge margin. That's from Pugets numbers. Now either their 'experience' is skewed by volume (e.g. far more volume of Ryzen 5000 = far more failed chips, even though percentage wise they're better than 11th Gen Intel) or by bias.
 
SKILL said:
They're not though? The worst chip belongs to Intel, by a huge margin. That's from Pugets numbers.
Click to expand...

Puget said:
AMD CPUs in general had higher failure rates than Intel, but we did see an oddly high rate of failures with Intel's consumer-oriented 11th Gen processors... which seems odd, especially next to the very low rates shown by the preceeding 10th Gen
Click to expand...



skill said:
Now either their 'experience' is skewed by volume (e.g. far more volume of Ryzen 5000 = far more failed chips, even though percentage wise they're better than 11th Gen Intel) or by bias.
Click to expand...

Puget said:
Intel's Xeon processors have fantastically low failure rates, with no failures at all among the W-2200 series. However, that is the category here which we have the fewest sales of and therefore least data on, but combined with the Xeon Scalable family the Xeons overall had few failures here in our facility and none for customers in the field!
Click to expand...

You think Puget are biased? Go ahead, email them. Let us know the response.
 
james.miller said:
You think Puget are biased? Go ahead, email them. Let us know the response.
Click to expand...

I think the claim "'AMD CPUs in general had higher failure rates than Intel, but we did see an oddly high rate of failures with Intel's consumer-oriented 11th Gen processors... which seems odd, especially next to the very low rates shown by the preceeding 10th Gen." is an interesting way to intepret the numbers they report, They seem to be taking collating data on failures and then outright ignoring two data points in making a claim that favours one manufacturer over another.

It seems to be either bias or incompetence, I don't care which.

As for contacting them why would I bother?
 
jigger said:
It seems HGST have gone down hill since the Western Digital buy out…

Under Hitachi HGST to be super reliable drives.
Click to expand...
That's a pity as in the Backblaze surveys they used to be way ahead. Toshiba also used to do well. Not that running consumer drives with enterprise loads is the be all of determining hard drive reliability, but it was useful. Coincidentally, a certain high-street vendor of used parts had/has set price of the Backblaze "winner" higher similar capacities the last time I looked.

As for Puget: they do love to get publicity!
 
SKILL said:
I think the claim "'AMD CPUs in general had higher failure rates than Intel, but we did see an oddly high rate of failures with Intel's consumer-oriented 11th Gen processors... which seems odd, especially next to the very low rates shown by the preceeding 10th Gen." is an interesting way to intepret the numbers they report, They seem to be taking collating data on failures and then outright ignoring two data points in making a claim that favours one manufacturer over another.

It seems to be either bias or incompetence, I don't care which.

As for contacting them why would I bother?
Click to expand...

You wouldnt bother, we both know that.
 
SKILL said:
What purpose would it serve?
Click to expand...
For you, none, because you wouldnt listen to their 'incompetance' anyway.

I'm not arguing about this any more. their 11th gen numbers are clearly abnormal next to any other group of processors and they stated as much. as for the rest, all three AMD groups of processors had a higher percentage of shop+field failures than any of group of intel cpu's they sold bar gen11 and so their conclusion is sound given that they did note they didnt have much data on intel W CPUs.
 
james.miller said:
For you, none, because you wouldnt listen to their 'incompetance' anyway.

I'm not arguing about this any more. their 11th gen numbers are clearly abnormal next to any other group of processors and they stated as much. as for the rest, all three AMD groups of processors had a higher percentage of shop+field failures than any of group of intel cpu's they sold bar gen11 and so their conclusion is sound given that they did note they didnt have much data on intel W CPUs.
Click to expand...

I assume of course you emailed them a glowing review on such incredible analysis and to keep up the good work? Right?
 
james.miller said:
Why would *I* email them? I'm not refuting the conclusion.

Reach much.
Click to expand...

Even if they weren't biased, or indeed incompetent, I doubt they'd even bother responding to some random person commenting on their claims.

Ok, so you only email people who publish claims you disagree with then? Does this happen often? Talk about 'reach', you're the one who brought up emailing them for no reason.
 
SKILL said:
Even if they weren't biased, or indeed incompetent, I doubt they'd even bother responding to some random person commenting on their claims.

Ok, so you only email people who publish claims you disagree with then? Does this happen often? Talk about 'reach', you're the one who brought up emailing them for no reason.
Click to expand...
Lol, stop it, you're the one calling incompetance but wouldnt dare talk to them about it. You rather try the character assasination with me instead because you know they've got all the data to back up their article.
SKILL said:
Ok, so you only email people who publish claims you disagree with then?
Click to expand...
Strawman. Enough now, you're being silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom