[__alexs]

Isn't the whole problem that it wasn't QA'd out precisely because Intel no longer know how to ship good products? Sure Intel have the resources to make their customers whole on this screw up but the concern is that Intel have had a pattern of poor execution in the fast 10-15 years and this is just the most recent example.

[stoobs]

One of the videos from the well connected tech youtubers (I think it was GamersNexus) said that QA had caught the issue (if you push this bus too hard with voltage, there will be issues) but management ignored it because they needed to compete with AMD. There was also something about pushing previously binned i7 parts out as i9's by pushing the voltages to meet demand too. I'll see if I can find the reference a bit later.

[minkles]

There are few absolutes so stop trying to reduce the problem to one such as "Intel bad" because that's disingenuous.

It's really hard to reason about things until you hit large quantities of hardware in production, separate statistical failures from non-statistical failures, separate end user idiocy from real issues and do the analysis, then reproduce it conclusively. This is not helped by the target end of the market demand being interested in running things close to the line on boards kicked out by the lowest bidder. On top of that you have large vendors like Dell and Lenovo who take forever to feed information back on warranty claims because their end user support is fucking awful.

Basically it's very hard to reason about this pre-production despite every effort and QA step in the book being followed.

[__alexs]

I am not reducing it to "Intel bad". There's tons of evidence of them having execution problems in recent years. Is it savable? Possibly. Intel is huge and has a good amount of time and support so they certainly have the resources to do so.

The available evidence that they are actually doing the right things to turn the ship around isn't that positive in my, or apparently many very large shareholders view though.