Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It does wear out. As a general rule everything with moving parts can wear out, and a CPU is full of moving electrons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration

It takes on the order of 100 years for well made modern CPUs to fail due to these effects, but poorly made CPUs could fail far earlier. There are likely some nonzero number of failures attributable to electromigration.

There are some people who buy overclockable parts and don't overclock them because they are more robust. It's unknown exactly how or why CPUs fail. Taking them apart to check is an extremely expensive endeavor. But sometimes they do.




So processors wear out but it takes longer than a lifetime and longer than any processor has exited for it to happen?

Where is the evidence that AMD is more 'more reliable' than Intel?


Also, the chip obviously doesn't need to wear out to become less preformant over time. Reliability is perhaps the wrong word, I think quality would suit better.

But in any case, if you have one chip that decreases in performance 10% per year due to security mitigations and another chip that remains consistently performant, it is something to consider when shopping.


> But in any case, if you have one chip that decreases in performance 10% per year due to security mitigations

Why would this be true?


Because security mitigations contained in micro code updates regularly impact performance.

I mean, no offense, but that is literally the focus of this article and this discussion.


This is a one time thing, where are you getting a pattern from?

You hallucinated 10% a year from a single incident and called it "reliability".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: