[foft]

The tricky thing here is that as this mostly affects unlocked CPUs it is going to be hard to prove when the fault is from this algorithm vs user/motherboard manufacturer overlocking. Unless there is any internal monitoring with fuses blown. Is there?

As part of the bathtub reliability curve its usual for a large fraction of failures early in life, how much over the usual failure curve are we?

It's still unclear what fraction of CPUs are impacted for both issues. Was oxidation a single fab just for a month and only 5% of produced CPUs? Is the microcode issue in TB 3.0 or TVB, so would only impact the 1[34]900s?

It's also unclear if once degraded it can still reliably work at say 95% peak frequency. In the case of a partial recall it might be worth a discount option if that is the case.

Anyway it's mostly speculation beyond Intel's post on their forum (+Reddit responses), it will be interested to see the next stages which will hopefully clarify some of these. This is just a discussion forum I'm sure the final detailed announcement will the made via their main communication channels.

[wmf]

The PR is so bad that Intel is going to have to take responsibility regardless. And updating the microcode kind of "proves" that the old microcode was defective in some way.