its not about excusing intel failures. BUT
imho it is misleading in the context of the current discussion, if you also include statistics data of initial failed cpu, youre kinda polluting the pool. Thats what im criticizing here. it may not be intentional, but its definitely not helping.
it distracts from the degrading issue if you also add data from DOA cases.
in opposite other (not yet public?) data, where inital tests have been passed but subsequent tests not.
ps. and it should be crystal clear that Intel has a massive interest in anything that distracts from the degrading issue. be it letting some youtuber blaming (already debunked) motherboardsvendors or possibly (tinfoil hat mode) by 'innocently' throwing statistics to he public that include other failures and pull competitors also into the spotlight, you know how detailed public looks at statistics. they see big bar labled with amd and say hey, amd fails too - that its a total different case, most will ignore.
in opposite other (not yet public?) data, where inital tests have been passed but subsequent tests not.
ps. and it should be crystal clear that Intel has a massive interest in anything that distracts from the degrading issue. be it letting some youtuber blaming (already debunked) motherboardsvendors or possibly (tinfoil hat mode) by 'innocently' throwing statistics to he public that include other failures and pull competitors also into the spotlight, you know how detailed public looks at statistics. they see big bar labled with amd and say hey, amd fails too - that its a total different case, most will ignore.