So basically an OS. The only difference is that the OS developer doesn't control or make all the apps (features). Which I think is good for competition, but bad for tight integration.
But this is exactly what we like to avoid from Google and Apple. Perhaps, it can work in China because of strong Govt oversight (read: control), but not in U.S..
TL;DR over from Puget reddit accounts is that their overall failure rates for all chips is very low because they run it at tightly controlled base specs.
So any automatic boosting/OC doesn't come in play here, which might be why Intel chips are failing more in the broader user space.
~~What?~~
I looked it up but don't understand it.
Actually, I think it's not about defect numbers. This is about delaying until Intel releases the microcode update. They want to be compared after the (potentially) performance tanking update from Intel. Which is hilarious because Intel gave a date after AMD's initial launch date.
I think it's also fair as a lot of reviewers aren't going to bother retesting after Intel releases updates and comparing with AMD after the 9000 series hype has died down, if they had just recently did so for the AMD launch.
You can't explain it!
I understand the cynicism. But if you've been following this topic, Intel really fucked with some huge customers (businesses) here. And AMD was already stealing their lunch with their previous gen processors.
Why does "nothing but" and "all but" mean the same thing?
Did you just put "repairable" and "Apple" in the same sentence?
Obviously a stunt.
Long gone are the days when I used be excited to read update notes for new features... Now I just hope they don't god damn force an update on me.