I expect Intel to come off worse in this exchange. GN and L1 are doing some absurd amounts of research and experimentation on this, from what I’ve heard so far. I’m really looking forward to them disproving a bunch of bullshit from Intel. This might even yield a class-action suit.

Not that crazy. Back then they were a luxury item and competition could easily spring up if they lost control of the market. Now they're a necessity, competition is scarce, and they have deals with most major manufacturers to keep them in businesses even with faulty products. It's standard late-capitalism consolidation at work.

They were relatively quick to pull the 1.13GHz Pentium III from the market when it turned out to have stability issues from pushing Coppermine too far.

This feels like a repeat of that, but with Intel sticking their heads in the sand and screwing over customers instead.

Don't they usually check serial numbers?

70/30% of the logs, not of the errors. It's equivalent to what you're thinking of as market share. (I can't really blame you for misunderstanding, though; this article is poorly written.)

The proportion of errors is better explained in another article:

In fact, for one particular type of error (decompression, a commonly performed operation in games), there was a total of 1,584 that occurred in the databases Level1Techs sifted through, and an alarming 1,431 of those happened with a 13900K or 14900K. Yes – that’s 90% of those decompression errors hitting just two specific CPUs.

As for other processors, the third most prevalent was an old Intel Core i7 9750H (Coffee Lake laptop CPU) – which had a grand total of 11 instances. All AMD processors in total had just 4 occurrences of decompression errors in these game databases.

In case you were thinking that AMD chips might be really underrepresented here, hence that very low figure, well, they’re not – 30% of the CPUs in the database were from Team Red.

yet

I feel lucky too. I have a 14900k that's stable. I did have some minor stability issues after I built it, but dialing back the motherboard's idiotic default settings plus a few BIOS updates cleared that up. With that said, if I had to do over, I'd build an AMD system. One of the big reasons I built Intel is that historically my Intel builds have been much more stable and less problematic than my AMD builds.

I thought I lose the silicon lottery, my 13900KS can't be underclocked at all or it will BSOD. Now I suppose I'm lucky it work fine at stock settings.

my 9600kf was able to do 5ghz with 1.35v for the first year, and i've had to lower the clocks again and again as it gets unstable. it's now only able to do 4.4ghz. recently upgraded to 7800x3d and i'm afraid to see how long this one lasts as it's 5ghz stock and gets quite warm even in light use. performance is amazing though, realized my old cpu bottlenecked in many games.