I have already said that 5 years ago I have stopped buying Intel CPUs, except for extremely cheap computers, which is the only market segment where Intel is com

I have already said that 5 years ago I have stopped buying Intel CPUs, except for extremely cheap computers, which is the only market segment where Intel is competitive. That does not look as what an Intel employee or shareholder would say. I have also mentioned the AMD initial Zen bug, because people have a short memory and they forget that 7 years ago AMD has behaved even worse than Intel does today. The AMD bug was a CPU logic design error that should have been very easy to discover either during logic simulation or during the testing of the first samples, but AMD had not done adequate testing. It is possible that they have sold the first Ryzen with an already known bug, hoping that it will be bought only by gamers, because the first Epyc was launched only a few months later, using the same dies, but with another mask revision, and in it the bug had already been corrected. I have experience in semiconductor manufacturing, so I understand the difficulties of determining which is the maximum safe voltage for a product. This is not a CPU design error, but it can be a methodology error in the process used by Intel to test and qualify for sale their manufacturing process changes and their products. It is impossible for Intel to measure the lifetime of a new CPU before launch. Therefore they must do so-called accelerated tests, which are done at higher voltages, temperature and humidity than normal, so that the CPUs will fail fast enough, in a few weeks or a month at most. Then they have some estimation rules that say e.g. that a failure after one month in the accelerated test corresponds to a failure after at least 10 years at the customer. However, for new manufacturing processes the old estimation rules may no longer be valid. Intel does from time to time changes in the manufacturing process. For every change they should do again the accelerated failure tests, but perhaps they have skipped that, because the tests are long and expensive. Perhaps some Intel people have increased the maximum admissible CPU voltages in order to improve some benchmarks, even if they did not have the required results of accelerated failure tests to support such a decision. Hard to know what happened, because Intel does not tell.