Glad I switched to using AMD. Although some RUMINT indicating quality assurance troubles in 9000 series though. They were supposed to push out new product by end of July. But delayed to mid August.
The only rumors I've seen are generic guesses: something AMD wasn't screening for, maybe coincidence, or maybe detected after the Intel mess sent AMD's QA teams scurrying to make sure they don't have any similar issues.
It could even be a combined issue with 3rd-party motherboards with AMD's new chipsets, the combination of which they wouldn't have been able to thoroughly test much earlier.
Isn't RUMINT on the Intel problem that, even though it's nominally a chip problem, it may occur primarily due to motherboards not following guidance? For instance, if a spec says the chip and mobo should lower max voltage by 100mV under certain conditions, but the chip still sometimes requests the full original voltage under those conditions, and the mobo provides it, whose fault is that? Maybe not exclusively Intel's, depending on how the specs are documented (a classic should vs must issue).
It seems likely that small process sizes and pushing the limits of performance are going to cause more problems like this Intel one. Notice Intel didn't have this problem before they had to push their chips to compete against the high-end Ryzens.
That was merely Intel's first attempt at deflection / damage control. Kernel of truth to it, of course.
If it is the SOC it doesn't have anything to do with pushing nodes as it's on a larger node and the soc itself should be a mature architecture because it's reused from zen 4
I had a theory that the "quality issues" are a marketing ploy (see? we don't send customers bad products, unlike those other guys) combined with an excuse to delay the release date (and thus the review embargo date) until after the proposed Intel microcode release, since the updated microcode was expected to negatively impact Intel in the performance comparison.