Intel and AMD processors
Since this is mostly workstation data, the bulk of the processors tested come from these product segments, but it still includes enthusiast chips from AMD and Intel. Puget’s Notes that “AMD processors in general had higher failure rates than Intel, but we saw an oddly high failure rate with consumer-facing 11th Gen Intel processors…which seems odd, especially next to the rates very weak displayed by the previous 10th generation.”
Intel’s 10th Gen chips were remarkably reliable, with the AMD Ryzen 5000 series hitting a 2% failure rate in the lab, with just 0.77% in the field. The winner is obviously Intel’s Xeon W-2200 series, which had zero failures both in the field and in the lab.
Without the 11th Gen impact, Intel would be more reliable overall than AMD according to this chart. The failure rate of 11th Gen is high enough to push Intel into this position.
Puget only uses Nvidia cards, both enthusiast and workstation models, so there’s no AMD GPU news here. The one notable takeaway from its data, somewhat surprisingly, is that Nvidia’s own Founder’s Edition cards are more reliable than those built by its partners. The delta isn’t huge, but it looks like Nvidia did some impressive engineering on the FE models, which were understandably the hardest to find for sale anywhere. Something also went wrong with its RTX Quadro cards, whose name was eventually changed to Professional RTX A Series.
SSD and HDD
This is by far the most interesting chart as it provides very useful data, at least in our opinion. The most striking result is the 0.0% failure rate for Samsung 870 EVO/QVO SSDs, which is quite amazing considering it’s a two-year period. Not a single breakdown? Kudos to Samsung. Its 860 Pro and 980 Pro models were also virtually fail-safe, so a very good performance here from Samsung. It’s also worth noting, as Puget points out in his article, that the two Western Digital hard drive models he uses have nearly identical failure rates, despite targeting different audiences (NAS vs. Enterprise). And finally, while the Seagate Firecuda SSD had a 0.65% failure rate in the lab, not a single one ever died in the hands of a customer, which is good news. This graph also clearly indicates that SSDs are more reliable than HDDs, at least among the products being compared.
Overall, we have mixed data on this point. According to data published by Backblaze, the failure rates of HDDs and SSDs are similar. This distinction can be caused by several factors, including different workload demands on end-user hardware, differences in testing criteria, and length of time the hardware has been evaluated.
Puget only uses two PSU brands, Super Flower and EVGA, but its data shows a clear correlation between higher wattage and higher failure rates. As Puget puts it, “which makes sense, given that they’re likely to handle much larger and perhaps more sustained power loads.” Overall, however, none of the PSUs’ failure rates were troubling, leading to the conclusion that both brands are generally reliable. It also states that all of the PSUs above are modular, in case anyone is interested.
The most reliable Samsung SSDs
According to Puget Systems, of all the parts tested over the years, Samsung SSDs have proven to be the most reliable component, bar none. The company notes in its blog post that it has sold over 35,000 Samsung SSDs over the years and only had 100 total failures. Most, if not all, PC builders are aware of Samsung’s excellent reputation in the SSD world, not only for the performance of its drives, but also for their reliability and excellent software. However, it’s still interesting to see that reputation backed up by real-world data that includes thousands of discs used in the real world.
the the full report is right here, and includes some categories that we have disregarded due to editorial discretion. We strongly recommend that you check it out.