undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDylan168071y ago0 comments

It sounds like their analysis is that the oxidation issue is comfortably below the level of "defective".

No product will ever be perfect. You don't need to do a recall for a sufficiently rare problem.

And in case anyone skims, I will be extra clear, this is based on the claim that the oxidation is separate from the real problem here.

0 comments

abracadaniel1y ago

They could recall the defective batch. All of the cpus with that defect will fail from it. The seem to have been content to hope no one noticed.

Dylan16807OP1y ago

What makes you think there was a "defective batch"? What makes you think all the CPUs affected by that production issue will fail from it?

That description sounds to me like it affected the entire production line for months. It's only worth a recall if a sufficient percent of those CPUs will fail. (I don't want to argue about what particular percent that should be.)

hsbauauvhabzb1y ago

My CPU was unstable for months, I spent tens of hours and hundreds on equipment to troubleshoot (I _never_ thought my CPU would be the cause). Had I of known this, I would have scrutinised the cpu a lot faster than what I did.

Intel not making a public statement about potentially defective products could have been done with good PR spin ‘we detected an issue, believe the defect rate will be < 0.25%, here’s a test suite you can run, call if you think you’re one of the .25!’ But they didn’t.

I’m never buying an intel product again. Fuck intel.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse