An Intel fan says that the Athlon 64 ...

[beenlurkingforyears]

A coworker and Intel fan says that the Athlon 64 field failure rate is high according to a 'business' magazine. I have not seen ANY indication from ANYWHERE that this is correct. Have any of you read or experienced anything to support his position?

Background:
He says the source is a 'business' magazine. So -- he says -- this means it must be true. But I have my doubts -- he has been anti-AMD for years with some source for a never-ending stream of FUD regarding AMD processors.

On balance, I have been an AMD fan for years. So he and I have had 'discussions' on a variety of 'facts' he offers from time to time about AMD processors. He caught me flat-footed this morning with this one because I had not heard word one on this topic.

Thanks.

 

[Wingznut]

I have seen such articles as well. One in particular that I recall, said their yields were pretty much too low to believe. Whether they are true or not... Well, only AMD knows. Yield, bin split, and cost data are the most protected numbers in this industry. Most likely, the articles in question were speculating based on circumstantial evidence.

However, I (personally) have little doubts that their yields/bin splits weren't so good. One reason is that SOI wafers tend to have more native defects in them, and also the Hammer series wouldn't have been so often delayed if they weren't having problems.

Do they still have the same issues?... You'll have to ask AMD, but don't bother with the effort because they won't tell you anyway.

 

[beenlurkingforyears]

Wingznut

Very true. I've seen some of the articles regarding production yields etc., but nothing regarding field failures. He was implying people would be foolish to buy a system with an AMD CPU because people were receiving lots of DOA chips and machines. I hadn't seen anything that would lead me to believe that.

 

[myocardia]

Well, I haven't bought any Athlon64's yet, but out of all the AMD proc.'s I've bought, not one has ever had any problems. And I switched to AMD starting with the 600mhz Athlon, about 6 years ago. But Wingnut is right, SOI wafers have always had a lower yield, in terms of production numbers.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: beenlurkingforyears
Wingznut

Very true. I've seen some of the articles regarding production yields etc., but nothing regarding field failures. He was implying people would be foolish to buy a system with an AMD CPU because people were receiving lots of DOA chips and machines. I hadn't seen anything that would lead me to believe that.

who knows what time line we are talking about...As of now the athlon64 is rather new...Only time will tell but the opteron has been aroun much longer and I don't think I have seen one dead AMD 64bit chip yet...Doesn't mean there isn't any, but trust me if they were as frequent as the article suggest somebody here or at the other forums I go to (collective 100,000 members plus) would have had this happen....

I doubt it...I agree mauybe early silicon was having issue but that is why AMD did a good job of hammering out those issues with delays instead of putting out bad product...

Remember the SOI process was new to them and IBM coming in probably helped with those issues and ironed them out...

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: beenlurkingforyears
Wingznut

Very true. I've seen some of the articles regarding production yields etc., but nothing regarding field failures. He was implying people would be foolish to buy a system with an AMD CPU because people were receiving lots of DOA chips and machines. I hadn't seen anything that would lead me to believe that.

Oops... I misread your first post. I thought you had said "yield failure rate". Sorry about that.

 

[Acanthus]

A DOA machine would be the makers fault for sure... They should be thoroughly tested before being shipped to customers.

 

[Markfw]

...Doesn't mean there isn't any, but trust me if they were as frequent as the article suggest somebody here or at the other forums I go to (collective 100,000 members plus) would have had this happen....

Exactly. I have yet to see even ONE report of a DOA chip here or other forums. And mine was perfect, and stable and cool right out of the box and I bought mine the first day that particular chip was available. (3000+)

 

[XMan]

If AMD was having yield problems, wouldn't it be difficult to find an A64? They seem relatively plentiful and easy to come by, unlike, say, the P3 1.2 and other paper releases at their times . . . the 3000+ was even available from resellers before it was officially announced.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: X-Man
If AMD was having yield problems, wouldn't it be difficult to find an A64? They seem relatively plentiful and easy to come by, unlike, say, the P3 1.2 and other paper releases at their times . . . the 3000+ was even available from resellers before it was officially announced.

Of course, if demand is also low...

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: X-Man
If AMD was having yield problems, wouldn't it be difficult to find an A64? They seem relatively plentiful and easy to come by, unlike, say, the P3 1.2 and other paper releases at their times . . . the 3000+ was even available from resellers before it was officially announced.

Of course, if demand is also low...

I don't have any problems getting, or selling, AMD chips. Always seem to be new ones poping up, like the newer 2600+s and Thorton chips. Tough to do that if your chips are not selling.

 

[Accord99]

I was refering to the demand of the A64 chips. Athlon XP sales were strong in the last quarter and were responsible for the better financial results for AMD. But answers from AMD for questions with respect to the A64 suggested sales were poor.

 

[Ronin]

I've got 2 flawless A64's (3400+ and 3100+) that are happily crunching Seti daily. I've heard no indication from AMD that states there was a high failure rate, but naturally, they'd never make a public statement about it in the first place.

 

[Pistolero]

Don't scare me a bit.

 

[joe2004]

Production yield, that has been reported. But I don't think that is the case with retail CPUs, meaning the one you would buy. I keep on reading that they fail a lot on overclocking but I have two and they work just fine on 1.7 and 1.75V on air.
I have Pentium HT at 3.25 GHz and I can compare, Athlon 64 3200+ at 2.2 GHz is faster. The only problem are motherboards, just cannot find a real good one.
Intel is this time around behind no matter what you friend says. 3400+ is the fastest beast in town. Compared with $800 for FX51 or Pentium EE, ... there is really no comparison!

 

[beenlurkingforyears]

Thanks, all. I was sure he had been filled with FUD from some pro-Intel source: Now I KNOW he is.

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: Accord99
I was refering to the demand of the A64 chips. Athlon XP sales were strong in the last quarter and were responsible for the better financial results for AMD. But answers from AMD for questions with respect to the A64 suggested sales were poor.

And I was speaking of demand for all AMD Athlon chips, both XP and 64. I have heard of the yield issues - for EVERY new technology processor from ANY microprocessor maker, not just AMD and the Athlon 64 line. But that has nothing to do with the chips themselves, I have yet to hear of even one A64 failure in the field.