No, that's narrow and simplstic perspective.Again, Intel "admits" this only for CPUs which are showing issues when doing regular workloads. Not ALL 13/14th series (or 65W+, or whatever).
Rather from intel's pov, for this particular case, it's a reasonable aproach to take. It only "admits" to the damage that's observable somehow, because that's the only simple criteria that distinguishes between damaged processors and the fully functioning ones.
Namely, if there are failures, this implies processor is damaged. That does not mean ( at all ! ) that there are no other damaged processors as you stubbornly claim. ( Absence of evidence, does not mean proof of absence ! )
But, this approach only caches a subset of the damaged processors as very likely Intel does not want to deal with false positives at all. (and communication with customers needs to be very clear and simple)
If you were Intel, how would * you * deal with false positives?
Last edited: