I Heard This Garbage Today from a Computer Technician

tlarkin said:
Yes, and like I said, how can this person qualify 1 out of 10 total? What happens if you put AMD processors in 5,000 desktops with crappy powersupplies and they fry 1 out of 10 processors.

Sorry, should have been more clear. I was saying if the systems have crappy hardware, or if they are in an environment with bad power, of course there will be a higher failure rate of all parts.

Maybe this guy did see 1 out of 10 fail, and maybe he is using crappy power supplies, or there have been lots of surges in power lately.

There are so many factors to make a statement like that true.
Click to expand...
From what i read, he looks to have meant "1 in 10 of ALL amd processors fail within 1 year", which as we all know, is definately not the case.

Even if he did not use the word "all", he was implying it, or would not have made the statement.
 
lovely? said:
LOL I know the video he is talking about with the throttling. That's old as hell. These people took the heatsinks off of an Intel processor and an AMD processor and the Intel clocked down while the AMD fried. That video is about 8-10 years old I believe.
Click to expand...

He didn't say anything about throttling at all that I recall. I was curious if AMD or Intel has the throttling feature on their present processors.

Yes I have seen that video you described. I didn't know it was that old.
 
tlarkin said:
Yes, and like I said, how can this person qualify 1 out of 10 total? What happens if you put AMD processors in 5,000 desktops with crappy powersupplies and they fry 1 out of 10 processors.

Sorry, should have been more clear. I was saying if the systems have crappy hardware, or if they are in an environment with bad power, of course there will be a higher failure rate of all parts.

Maybe this guy did see 1 out of 10 fail, and maybe he is using crappy power supplies, or there have been lots of surges in power lately.

There are so many factors to make a statement like that true.
Click to expand...

True, if you enter other factors. I'm talking about the CPU failure rates on its own. You can take 100 horses and shoot 10 of them, but thats doesnt mean the horse has a falure rate of 10 out of 100.:D
 
2048Megabytes said:
He didn't say anything about throttling at all that I recall. I was curious if AMD or Intel has the throttling feature on their present processors.

Yes I have seen that video you described. I didn't know it was that old.
Click to expand...
If your referring to the video from toms hardware....that was like a 1400+, socket A i believe.
 
tlarkin said:
Yes, and like I said, how can this person qualify 1 out of 10 total? What happens if you put AMD processors in 5,000 desktops with crappy powersupplies and they fry 1 out of 10 processors.

Sorry, should have been more clear. I was saying if the systems have crappy hardware, or if they are in an environment with bad power, of course there will be a higher failure rate of all parts.

Maybe this guy did see 1 out of 10 fail, and maybe he is using crappy power supplies, or there have been lots of surges in power lately.

There are so many factors to make a statement like that true.
Click to expand...

Intel processors would be failing then as well if they were given garbage power supplies that were giving power surges to the processors. I know that this guy's knowledge is wrong regarding the quality of AMD processors.

And to also be fair to Intel, their processors are not lacking in quality either. They likely have about the same or better defective rate as AMD when released to the public. I wouldn't hesitate to buy an Intel processor based on the quality of the processor they produce. What irks me about Intel is the poor quality of the heatsinks they sell with their processors.
 
2048Megabytes said:
Intel processors would be failing then as well if they were given garbage power supplies that were giving power surges to the processors. I know that this guy's knowledge is wrong regarding the quality of AMD processors.

And to also be fair to Intel, their processors are not lacking in quality either. They likely have about the same or better defective rate as AMD when released to the public. I wouldn't hesitate to buy an Intel processor based on the quality of the processor they produce. What irks me about Intel is the poor quality of the heatsinks they sell with their processors.
Click to expand...

I actually disagree. My opinion is biased, but Intel makes a better product. My opinion is based on managing tens of thousands of systems over the last few jobs I had. I saw AMDs with more failures than over Intel.

I will say that I hardly ever see a processor fail. Usually, the motherboard fails first, and every modern motherboard I know of has what is called a mosfet chip in it. Which basically takes the voltage and kills the board to save the processor. Kind of like jumping in front of a bullet for someone. This is not the design of what mosfet transistor, but it is a side effect. As they switch the voltages to maintain lower heat and control spikes, they will blown in the event of something gone bad, rendering the motherboard defective and typically shutting the machine off. Thus, saving the processor.

I think maybe I would see a hand full (10 or under) total processors fail every year I have worked. The failure rate was higher in AMDs, however, it was no where near 1 out of 10.

Now, if the system you are running the processor in, has inferior designed hardware, lack of a mosfet system controlling or an inferior one. A power supply that doesn't give out constant voltage/wattage and likes to spike or surge. You are going to see higher failure rates. That is why I brought up that it is subjective to what you mean by 1 out of 10 fail.

I remember 6 or 7 (heck, it may have been 8 years now!) years ago when I was doing mostly hardware tech work for a warranty repair shop, we saw a bunch of dead machines come in (from a specific model of computer) and you could pop the side panel off and sure enough the MOSFET transistor were blown on them, all of them. This was due to a shoddy power supply and not a single one of them had a bad processor. The power supply for that PC company ended up having a recall on it and we would swap out PSU and motherboard to fix the issue.

Oh and one more thing...

To say that 1 out of 10 just fail and not taking other hardware into consideration is pretty moot. As a processor by itself can't do anything and it is just one major component required for computers to work. So, of course you must take the other components into consideration when talking about failure rates.
 
Last edited:
Good information Tlarkin. Thanks for posting it. You did make a good point in your post that I got. It is difficult to place one component in a computer as being more important than the other because if they all don't work correctly then your system won't work all.
 
tlarkin said:
I actually disagree. My opinion is biased, but Intel makes a better product. My opinion is based on managing tens of thousands of systems over the last few jobs I had. I saw AMDs with more failures than over Intel.

I will say that I hardly ever see a processor fail. Usually, the motherboard fails first, and every modern motherboard I know of has what is called a mosfet chip in it. Which basically takes the voltage and kills the board to save the processor. Kind of like jumping in front of a bullet for someone. This is not the design of what mosfet transistor, but it is a side effect. As they switch the voltages to maintain lower heat and control spikes, they will blown in the event of something gone bad, rendering the motherboard defective and typically shutting the machine off. Thus, saving the processor.

I think maybe I would see a hand full (10 or under) total processors fail every year I have worked. The failure rate was higher in AMDs, however, it was no where near 1 out of 10.

Now, if the system you are running the processor in, has inferior designed hardware, lack of a mosfet system controlling or an inferior one. A power supply that doesn't give out constant voltage/wattage and likes to spike or surge. You are going to see higher failure rates. That is why I brought up that it is subjective to what you mean by 1 out of 10 fail.

I remember 6 or 7 (heck, it may have been 8 years now!) years ago when I was doing mostly hardware tech work for a warranty repair shop, we saw a bunch of dead machines come in (from a specific model of computer) and you could pop the side panel off and sure enough the MOSFET transistor were blown on them, all of them. This was due to a shoddy power supply and not a single one of them had a bad processor. The power supply for that PC company ended up having a recall on it and we would swap out PSU and motherboard to fix the issue.

Oh and one more thing...

To say that 1 out of 10 just fail and not taking other hardware into consideration is pretty moot. As a processor by itself can't do anything and it is just one major component required for computers to work. So, of course you must take the other components into consideration when talking about failure rates.
Click to expand...

2048Megabytes said:
Good information Tlarkin. Thanks for posting it.
Click to expand...


Give me a break. A post that long just to say that cheap mosfets can blow on a motherboard and building a computer with cheap hardware is more likley to go out then one with good hardware. Rocket science:rolleyes:. Alot of talk about something a noob should know.

The whole point, is a AMD processor more likley to go out then a Intel. Simple answer NO. If you build a computer with (cheap) hardware it will take out one processor just as quick as another. The hardware taking out the processor is not the point.
 
Last edited:
StrangleHold said:
Give me a break. A post that long just to say that cheap mosfets can blow on a motherboard and building a computer with cheap hardware is more likley to go out then one with good hardware. Rocket science:rolleyes:. Alot of talk about something a noob should know.

The whole point, is a AMD processor more likley to go out then a Intel. Simple answer NO. If you build a computer with (cheap) hardware it will take out one processor just as quick as another. The hardware taking out the processor is not the point.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I was unaware you were such an expert. My bad, and if you don't like my posts you can hit the ignore button.
 
tlarkin said:
Everything has a failure rate, and no it would not put them out of business. There are things called warranties for a reason. 1 out of 10 is pretty high, but it all depends on the system.
Click to expand...

how many people do you think would by an AMD processor with the knowledge that right off the bat it has a 10% chance of failure? i'm pretty sure it WOULD indeed put them out of business. there is a thing called quality assurance for a reason. failure of a product leaves a terribly negative impression on people. AMD would be ridiculed for poor quality and unreliability.
 
Droogie said:
how many people do you think would by an AMD processor with the knowledge that right off the bat it has a 10% chance of failure? i'm pretty sure it WOULD indeed put them out of business. there is a thing called quality assurance for a reason. failure of a product leaves a terribly negative impression on people. AMD would be ridiculed for poor quality and unreliability.
Click to expand...

Plus, since they're under warranty for the first year, they'd lose out on that. Cause they'd obviously have to supply one MORE processor to the customer. Spending money on two processors, for the price of one.
 
Droogie said:
how many people do you think would by an AMD processor with the knowledge that right off the bat it has a 10% chance of failure? i'm pretty sure it WOULD indeed put them out of business. there is a thing called quality assurance for a reason. failure of a product leaves a terribly negative impression on people. AMD would be ridiculed for poor quality and unreliability.
Click to expand...

I think 1 out of 10 is an exaggeration. However, like I stated earlier, you must take in other factors into consideration. If 1 out of 10 AMDs fail in HPs and lets say that Acers only 1 out of 100 fail. Is that a fault of AMD? Probably not, and it is more likely the problem of the HP's other hardware causing the failure.

I have never seen an out of the box defective processor, by either company. Typically CPUs do not fail on their own, typically something else causes it.

Now, I am talking about stock settings too, no over clocking.
 
i've never personally been able to kill a processor, i'm usually ready to upgrade well before it's on death row. i've got 800mhz pentium that i know for a fact still works.
 
mightymilk said:
i've never personally been able to kill a processor, i'm usually ready to upgrade well before it's on death row. i've got 800mhz pentium that i know for a fact still works.
Click to expand...

I have a slot 1 Celeron 300A which I did over clock that still works and Slot 1s were known for failure.
 
Is he talking about recent processors? or the old ones? I can say that i've had K-6's and Celerons failing on me but never anything released after 2000'. Anyways i disagree with the statement. It is all hardware dependent like tlarkin said. However when you bring other hardware into the equation then that's where it get's pointlessly complicated to argue due to quality and design of other hardware. But the fact of the matter remains, as someone else stated, is a AMD processor more likley to go out then a Intel? NO.
 
Drewat17 said:
Really?
Click to expand...

I think he was also, exaggerating.

Let me tell you all another story. A client of mine, years and years ago, was a big time sales guy for Dell. He would sell 10s of thousands of units to giant companies. He kept getting complaints form his clients in the South East part of the USA that their machines were defective out of the box. Like 15% were dead out of the box. He could not believe that.

So, he actually followed a shipment, as in he followed it from Dell, to the shipping company, got on the airplane it was shipped on, followed it to the shipping hub, then to the trucks and then to the destination.

He found the problem. All the computers were falling off a 25 foot conveyor belt when coming into the main shipping hub. Of course that is no fault of Dells, but it was an interesting story.

Again, there are so many factors. Everyone has stated their opinions, and I have stated mine and I admit mine are biased because I work in technology so my views and experiences are going to be vastly different than most people.

I would say this thread has served it's purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top