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.)
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.
This comment chain is talking about the oxidation in particular, and specifically the situation where the oxidation is not the cause of the instability in the title. That's the only way they "identified & addressed the issue but didn’t issue a recall".
Do you have a reason to think the oxidation is the cause of your problems?
Did you not read my first post trying to clarify the two separate issues?
Oxidisation in the context of CPU fabrication sounds pretty bad, I find it hard to believe it would have no impact on CPU stability regardless of what Intels PR team to say while minimizing any actual impacts caused.
Edit: it sounds like intel have been aware of stability issues for some time and have said nothing, I’m not sure we have any reason to trust anything they say moving forward, relating to oxidisation or any other claims they make.
Well they didn't notice it for a good while, so it's really hard to say how much impact it had.
And at a certain point if you barely believe anything they say, then you shouldn't be using their statement to get mad about. The complaint you're making depends on very particular parts of their statement being true but other very particular parts being not true. I don't think we have the evidence to do that right now.
> Well they didn't notice it for a good while, so it's really hard to say how much impact it had.
That negates any arguments you had related to failure rates.
> The complaint you're making depends on very particular parts of their statement being true but other very particular parts being not true
Er, I’m not even sure how to respond to this. GamersNexus has indicated they know about the oxidisation issue, intel *subsequently* confirm it was known internally but no public statement was made until now. I’m not unreasonably cherry picking parts of their statement and then drawing unreasonable conclusions. Intel have very clearly demonstrated they would have preferred to not disclose an issue in fabrication processes which very probably caused defective CPUs, they have demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour related to this entire thing (L1techs and GN are breaking the defective cpu story following leaks from major intel clients who have indicated that intel is basically refusing to cooperate).
Intel has known about these issues for some time and said nothing. They have cost organisations and individuals time and money. Nothing they say now can be trusted unless it involves them admitting fault.
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.)