>They are unstable. QA is bad, gets weird errors in programs (probably programs' fault but I don't care) and if the machine fails to function in any way it becomes my fault for choosing it. That's why my company buys an Intel workstation every time.

Could you please elaborate? I have 3 amd systems at home gen2 - gen3 and they are performing well under windows and linux. I use the win machine for gaming on tv while I work on linux with gen3. I have yet to experience any problem which caused by the cpu. And I did not encounter big issues other than the first generation ryzens in gaming.

Yes, we had got 6 AMD first gen Ryzen CPUs at my old job. Some of them were super instable on Linux. I tried a few magic solution and tricks but they always crashed eventually.

In my new job, I have a co-worker who is an AMD fan boy. He also had a first gen Razen CPU on his workstation. He got an Intel CPU after one crash and everything is fine since. He is still upset about it. Though he got a new Ryzen CPU at home and he says it's stable.

I assume that you got hit by the issue that was present in the early 1st gen Ryzen CPU-s. It did get resolved later on and AMD started a replacement program to address that particular issue.

Yes I think so.

What issues have you had on the first Gen ryzen cpus? I have been running 6 of them on my home lab (true a small sample size) and I have had no issues with them

Some were stable. Some were crashing after a random amount of time. Usually days. No kernel panic, just nothing. It didn't depend on the load, and whatever option you put on the kernel. We changed power supply and ram, and we eventually gave up.

AFAIR 1st Ryzens had some issues with their memory controllers.

1st gen Ryzen had a poor memory controller that was very finicky with memory. I had to swap out RAM a few times to get my 1st Gen Ryzen stable, but it's been rock solid since then. CPU / Motherboard compatibility with RAM is hard.

IIRC, there was a brief 2nd gen Ryzen glitch for crashing, which was resolved with some BIOS updates.

I've repurposed a R5 1600AE in a FreeBSD storage server, and I was frustrated by near-daily lockups after running it stably for the past few years on Linux.

After a BIOS update, an option for power supply idle control appeared, and selecting the "typical" over "low" option resolved the hangups. No C-state or C'n'Q changes required.

I did have to RMA the CPU initially when it wouldn't post with DIMMs in 2/4 slots, but later revisions seem to have quickly overcome the memory controller issues.

Are they still unstable? Was it the hardware or software the problem (bad support on Linux)?

I changed job since. I guess they still crash or have been disposed. I think it was both hardware and software, since some were working well and the crashing ones were working better on Windows.

> QA is bad, gets weird errors in programs (probably programs' fault but I don't care)

Haha what?

AMD's QA is bad. My friend runs a company that churns about >400 computers per month with AS guarantee mostly for office use. The ratio of initial failure confirmed by manufacturers was 15:1 and the ratio of failing within 2 years (cpu and motherboard failure) was 4:1. Those numbers does not reflect the fact that Intel systems sold more than AMD systems.

People dealing with professional softwares also have problems that are magically solved when they use Intel. Have no statistics on that tho.

How would a CPU fail? Also, did AMD manufacture all failed mobos? In which case who needs to do the QA

Just to be clear, I am not defending defective and/or unreliable products, just want to make sure the fingers are pointed into the right direction.

Freezing, not booting, certain applications not working, failing to pass stress tests, and other misc problems that the user reports.

When those things happen they just send them back to the distributor without testing further because they're not sure. They tell them that a)it's not their fault and returns the cpu or say b)it's their fault and sends a replacement.

Could be that AMD is blindly replacing CPUs rather than test them like Intel does.

there's this gem in the article

> The downside to going Intel here is finding a CPU for sale.

The truth is if you get an OEM workstation like sane people does you really don't have problems supplying them.

Are you okay?