Intel 6 Series chipset has a serious flaw?

[noko]

hehe, yeah things really happen quick at Intel and presto solution found.

Ranting so disreggard if it is offensive to you

Anyways I like to decide what I will buy as in if 4 SATA 6 ports and 2 SATA 3 ports are enough for me or not. Also if I need raid or not. Wait the SATA 6 ports are raid capable anyways . Hell if others can decide that then maybe I need even more PCIX 16x slots, three may not be enough, so then all cheapo motherboards also need to be recalled. The idea that some bloc just maybe dissappointed that those 4 sata ports are unusable, buys the board anyways knowing they are unusable is justification to prevent all shipments is utter nuts . If that is the case that is. Lets screw everyone because one person may get screwed or could get screwed mentality.

I guess the .32 micron Sandy Bridge production should stop as well since no reason to keep making them and storing them in some warehouse or build another great wall of China. Those folks should be layed off I guess until this is all sorted out.

Now if Nvidia had this standard we would be saying now "Nvidia who?".

Kinda fitting though in a way, Intel stingyness on chipsets, now there are no alternative chipsets to use Sandy Bridge with so all those CPUs can now gather dust .

Maybe Intel will get their Head out of something to give a better quicker solution, I won't hold my breath though.

[Ristogod]

Charlie @ S|A doesn't like that explanation:

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2011/01/...old-any-water/

Wow. Long read.

This is really going to hurt the mobo companies though. Not only does it really mess with their planned productions, but just think of all the wasted materials that has to be brought back.

And how long before we see these boards back in action? My guess is maybe April?

[Lupine]

Maybe Intel will get their Head out of something to give a better quicker solution, I won't hold my breath though.

In this case, I don't think quick is better. Not when you're dealing w/ user data.

[noko]

In this case, I don't think quick is better. Not when you're dealing w/ user data.

If ports are disabled, other ports are good, user data all good
Except when hard drive fails . Still I rather it be my choice instead of someone else thinking they know better then I in what I need. I would never use half of the good ports as it is. In fact probably 99% of all users will not use all the available good ports.

Anyways I am hoping for a cut down or stripped version (as in dissabled ports maybe with plastic inserts in them with a big red warning label saying these ports are not used or something). At a reduced cost though .

[Skynet]

[Razeus]

Motherboard companies will be suing for damages shortly.

[caveman-jim]

Motherboard companies will be suing for damages shortly.

Unlikely. They will try to leverage this in preferential terms for future shipments and designs. And they will look to AMD to spread their business and be less reliant on one company.

[Hapatingjaky]

Charlie @ S|A doesn't like that explanation:

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2011/01/...old-any-water/

The voices in Charlie's head told him this.

[aop]

Charlie @ S|A doesn't like that explanation:

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2011/01/...old-any-water/

I wonder what kind of educational background does Charlie have? Has he ever read any electronics or does he even know how a transistor works or how is it made? I'm no expert and have only studied some electronics in University (including basics of manufacturing technologies) but Intel's explanation sounds much better than Charlies rant:

The problem in the chipset was traced back to a transistor in the 3Gbps PLL clocking tree. The aforementioned transistor has a very thin gate oxide, which allows you to turn it on with a very low voltage. Unfortunately in this case Intel biased the transistor with too high of a voltage, resulting in higher than expected leakage current. Depending on the physical characteristics of the transistor the leakage current here can increase over time which can ultimately result in this failure on the 3Gbps ports.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/t...point-sata-bug

edit:
This is how I interpreted Anandtechs article:
Transistor gate needs voltage X to open the channel. Instead of correctly biasing the transistor Intel used voltage Y which causes the channel to be atleast partially open all the time and thus current leaks through it more than expected. The exact reason of transistor failure was not mentioned in the article but this may cause heat degradation of this transistor and eventually failure.

[caveman-jim]

I don't know, Intel's stock buyback happens the same day as their stock price is depressed because of the announcement? Not only that, but on the 24th - when they knew about the problem of CP chipsets - they increased the authorization for share buyback. And then do the buyback on the same day they halt trading, announce the $1Bn write down, and recall. SEC, wherefore art thou?

[caveman-jim]

Samsung is issuing full refunds

[Lupine]

Samsung is issuing full refunds

From the above:

Samsung, however, said there would be no financial impact on its business as total payment will be funded by Intel.

As I expected, so end users should see no financial cost here, regardless of who supplied the faulty hardware.

I like Anand's resolution the best though ...

I maintain that the best gesture of goodwill on Intel’s part would be to enable motherboard manufacturers to replace P67/H67 motherboards with Z68 boards for those users who want them.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/t...point-sata-bug

[caveman-jim]

From the above:

Samsung, however, said there would be no financial impact on its business as total payment will be funded by Intel.

As I expected, so end users should see no financial cost here, regardless of who supplied the faulty hardware.

Well, yes.... that is what Intel's $1Bn write is for, paying for the refunds and costs of handling the refunds, returns and replacements. Everybody expected that, where we need to look is to see which partners/customers of Intel don't offer full refunds or zero cost replacements of products.

I like Anand's proposed solution as well, but I don't think it will happen. Perhaps some companies will offer 'step up' type programs to allow replacing the P67/H67 board with a Z68 for a token minimal cost.

[Lupine]

Well, yes.... that is what Intel's $1Bn write is for, paying for the refunds and costs of handling the refunds, returns and replacements. Everybody expected that, where we need to look is to see which partners/customers of Intel don't offer full refunds or zero cost replacements of products.

I like Anand's proposed solution as well, but I don't think it will happen. Perhaps some companies will offer 'step up' type programs to allow replacing the P67/H67 board with a Z68 for a token minimal cost.

If Intel is covering the costs, why would any partner do any less than offer zero cost replacements and/or full refunds?

[caveman-jim]

If Intel is covering the costs, why would any partner do any less than offer zero cost replacements and/or full refunds?

Intel aren't covering costs, they are offering an allocation from the pot of money they've set aside. So each OEM/Partner puts together a number and justification of why they should get that much.

The partner wants the number to include punitive costs as well. They're the ones with the black eye and extra work. The number has to cover not only the cost of physical replacement, but the extra shipping, tracking, paperwork, office hours for handling it all.

Now, that $1Bn doesn't look like such a big pot anymore. So the partner wants to play both ends against the middle. They don't want to cover any cost they can pass on; shipping back to them of the defective board from the end user, advanced replacements, covering replacements of board models they don't have in stock with higher end models, step-up programs.

The end user wants to be treated like a injured party, premium concierge style. They want a free, better motherboard, without having to send the defective one back until the new one comes in (if they even want to send it back at all). Until the free, better motherboard is available, they want a free add in board that offers all the functionality that they lost. Despite having paid $150, they want to be treated like they bought a Bentley. Dammit, without them, the company they purchased from would go out of business! They're entitled to this!

The reseller/partner/OEM wants to minimize costs, while balancing PR. Depending on the market segment they service and the number of customers they have, they will approach it differently. Especially if they have nice wide product porfolio to defray costs against until they can work out passing on costs.

So large companies can put the price of all their lines up a small amount, get the money from Intel, and do right by the consumer for those affected. Smaller companies have to consider how much cash they have on hand, to pay for immediate costs like shipping, calling their suppliers to get orders cancelled, updated etc., as well as overtime/new hires for handling the deluge of emails and phone calls. They might be up against a choice of damaging reputation slightly vs. going out of business before the replacement boards arrive. And all of this doesn't factor in publicly traded companies that have to deal with shareholder and board pressure to keep money revenues high.

That's why we'll see what appear to be obviously bad mind-share and PR moves, in the handling of this recall. Intel are already doing the dance to appease the shareholders and board, by the very nature of their disclosure. Now they middle management guys have to appease the partners, OEM's and so forth, using the $1Bn the sparingly as possible.

[moshpit]

I like Anand's proposed solution as well, but I don't think it will happen. Perhaps some companies will offer 'step up' type programs to allow replacing the P67/H67 board with a Z68 for a token minimal cost.

If they can offer a Sabertooth P67 style board with Z68 for a minimal cost difference, I'd take that with a smile on my face and call this whole thing a plus. But, if the Z68 offer isn't for a board nearly identical in other aspects, including the Thermal Armor which I've decided I really like the look of, then I just want a straight up trade out for the same as what I have.

I'm also loath to give up the most forgiving overclockers motherboard I've ever owned. Auto is a worthwhile setting now! Seriously! And not just for CPU voltages, memory too! Auto seems to actually scale to exact real world needs in a way I've never had a board do before. As CPU speed is increased via multi, the vcore goes up JUST enough to keep it stable, manual doesn't shave anything off and keep stability. Same goes for vmem, this is the first board I dropped 4 sticks in, manually set speed to 1600 and timings to all 9's, 21, and 2T, and leave vmem on auto. Instantly worked fine and perfect stability.

Lost 4 SATA2 ports to gain all that? I'll take that deal!

[Bires]

Lost 4 SATA2 ports to gain all that? I'll take that deal!

+1.

I do wonder what happens in the spring when the new boards go on sale. Newegg said this:

In keeping with our commitment to our customers, we are extending the return period for your motherboard by 90 days or until replacements become available from the manufacturer, whichever is greater. Intel expects to have a new revision of the P67 & H67 chipsets out around April, at which point first-run motherboards with this issue will need to be physically replaced in affected systems.

[noko]

Intel aren't covering costs, they are offering an allocation from the pot of money they've set aside. So each OEM/Partner puts together a number and justification of why they should get that much.

The partner wants the number to include punitive costs as well. They're the ones with the black eye and extra work. The number has to cover not only the cost of physical replacement, but the extra shipping, tracking, paperwork, office hours for handling it all.

Now, that $1Bn doesn't look like such a big pot anymore. So the partner wants to play both ends against the middle. They don't want to cover any cost they can pass on; shipping back to them of the defective board from the end user, advanced replacements, covering replacements of board models they don't have in stock with higher end models, step-up programs.

The end user wants to be treated like a injured party, premium concierge style. They want a free, better motherboard, without having to send the defective one back until the new one comes in (if they even want to send it back at all). Until the free, better motherboard is available, they want a free add in board that offers all the functionality that they lost. Despite having paid $150, they want to be treated like they bought a Bentley. Dammit, without them, the company they purchased from would go out of business! They're entitled to this!

The reseller/partner/OEM wants to minimize costs, while balancing PR. Depending on the market segment they service and the number of customers they have, they will approach it differently. Especially if they have nice wide product porfolio to defray costs against until they can work out passing on costs.

So large companies can put the price of all their lines up a small amount, get the money from Intel, and do right by the consumer for those affected. Smaller companies have to consider how much cash they have on hand, to pay for immediate costs like shipping, calling their suppliers to get orders cancelled, updated etc., as well as overtime/new hires for handling the deluge of emails and phone calls. They might be up against a choice of damaging reputation slightly vs. going out of business before the replacement boards arrive. And all of this doesn't factor in publicly traded companies that have to deal with shareholder and board pressure to keep money revenues high.

That's why we'll see what appear to be obviously bad mind-share and PR moves, in the handling of this recall. Intel are already doing the dance to appease the shareholders and board, by the very nature of their disclosure. Now they middle management guys have to appease the partners, OEM's and so forth, using the $1Bn the sparingly as possible.

Of course you got countless want of be users wishing for one of those defective boards too

[WhAt3v3r]

No bid deal. Jeez, they are correcting it. Just switch to the Marvel and put your DVD drive on the Intel. I'm glad I get a shiny new updated motherboard when they are out since I bought from the EGG, but what a bitch to undo my water cooling setup and do another mobo swap.

[Lupine]

We've posted the official Asus response on the front page:

http://www.rage3d.com/index.php?cat=75#newsid33973552

[Syl66]

Here is a little bit of info I read over on NCIX .

The feedback from Intel's tier 1 motherboard partners is that no one outside of Intel's lab has been able to produce this error yet despite attempts to speed up the process by increasing voltages to the affected components and subjecting them to heavy use. At this time NCIX recommends that customers continue to use the P67/H67 products until replacements are available.

[alex-the-cat]

Wierd, Newegg pulled the procs too. Backward time machine enabled!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...d=1&name=Intel

if there is no board to use the proc, why bother?