Linux is accusing Intel of killing ECC intentionally. But that is not really the case, they just wanted people to pay up.
If you care about ECC, you pay for Xeon. Majority of consumers don't run critical applications on their devices, so they are happy with a cheap device that may crash once in a while.
AMD is only changing the game because they are trying to undercut Intel. They have been putting pro features into all of their CPUs including over-clocking, extra PCIE lanes and ECC.
Honestly, what is the point of bullet-proof hardware when the software reliability (at least on consumer devices) has gone down to two nines.
Intel had to kill consumer ECC as part of making it a feature that people can "pay up" for. That's very intentional.
> AMD is only changing the game because they are trying to undercut Intel. They have been putting pro features into all of their CPUs including over-clocking, extra PCIE lanes and ECC.
You are correct to call them a corporation. AMD is not your friend, but they are the good actor in this fight.
ECC isn't enough to be bulletproof but improves reliability for well known relatively unreliable parts. Extra theoretical cost for ECC should be accepted for most of computer users. It also helps developing cheaper RAM technology (see what's happened on SSD).
If you care about ECC, you pay for Xeon. Majority of consumers don't run critical applications on their devices, so they are happy with a cheap device that may crash once in a while.
AMD is only changing the game because they are trying to undercut Intel. They have been putting pro features into all of their CPUs including over-clocking, extra PCIE lanes and ECC.
Honestly, what is the point of bullet-proof hardware when the software reliability (at least on consumer devices) has gone down to two nines.