A company representative told Tom’s Hardware that the issue doesn’t require a redesign or re-spin of the Ryzen 9000 silicon and will not result in changes to the already-defined specifications for the various models. AMD will re-screen the chips pulled from the field to identify any with potential issues and then return unaffected models to retail channels. This indicates that not all chips suffer from the issue.
An AMD representative told us that the company “identified an issue with our package product testing process for Ryzen 9000 series processors that could result in a small number of products reaching the market that do not meet our quality standards.” AMD specifically cited the package testing process, implying that the issue resides in the packaging implementation (more on that below).
It says nothing is wrong with the silicon. I appears to be a problem in some units where the silicon die is mated with the materials that hold it (fiberglass PCB or its interconnects).
While annoying, that’s absolutely less of a showstopper than discovering a lithography issue like big blue (that’s IBM) Intel has discovered (and who knows exactly how long ago they knew about the oxidization issues)
It sounds like the issue is specifically with the testing process. Possibly they didn’t test some of the packages properly and accidentally shipped out yield defects like missing memory channels, when they normally would have been scrapped at the factory.
Notice how you said “a problem with” and the article said “implying that”. There is some ambiguity. The issue is narrowed down but still not explicit. Hopefully we will get even more specifics later.
Of course there’s still some ambiguity. They’re likely investigating many things in parallel right now and cautiously assessing impact and scope. Their language suggests they think they’ve got the full picture, but they’re likely still exploring some niche areas to be safe.
They’ve given public statements on the general area of the issue and its limited scope. I think your expectations on this issue at this point about perfect transparency are a bit unrealistic for a publicly traded company.
Less an expectation and more of an ideal standard to strive for. Which I would think it’s in our best interest as future customers to have the highest expectations.
Well you’re certainly welcome to hold that opinion. I don’t think you’re recognizing the gravity of what you’re expecting them to commit to and also you’re setting yourself up for repeated disappointment.
Would be nice for AMD to say what is the specific problem. They chose to recall, there must be something concrete to say.
They did. Its in the article.
It says nothing is wrong with the silicon. I appears to be a problem in some units where the silicon die is mated with the materials that hold it (fiberglass PCB or its interconnects).
While annoying, that’s absolutely less of a showstopper than discovering a lithography issue like
big blue(that’s IBM) Intel has discovered (and who knows exactly how long ago they knew about the oxidization issues)Big blue is a nickname for IBM, but i think you’re referring to Intel
Ah whoops, you’re right
To be fair, they’re on a similar trajectory.
It sounds like the issue is specifically with the testing process. Possibly they didn’t test some of the packages properly and accidentally shipped out yield defects like missing memory channels, when they normally would have been scrapped at the factory.
Notice how you said “a problem with” and the article said “implying that”. There is some ambiguity. The issue is narrowed down but still not explicit. Hopefully we will get even more specifics later.
Of course there’s still some ambiguity. They’re likely investigating many things in parallel right now and cautiously assessing impact and scope. Their language suggests they think they’ve got the full picture, but they’re likely still exploring some niche areas to be safe.
They’ve given public statements on the general area of the issue and its limited scope. I think your expectations on this issue at this point about perfect transparency are a bit unrealistic for a publicly traded company.
Less an expectation and more of an ideal standard to strive for. Which I would think it’s in our best interest as future customers to have the highest expectations.
Well you’re certainly welcome to hold that opinion. I don’t think you’re recognizing the gravity of what you’re expecting them to commit to and also you’re setting yourself up for repeated disappointment.