Intel 6 Series chipset has a serious flaw?

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by Lupine

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

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

Tech report was commenting on this as well I noticed. For some reason, the procs are being pulled as well. Also, it appears Amazon still has full listings of items for sale still.

[Hapatingjaky]

][/url]

As I watched tonights upgrade go down the toilet...

[Hapatingjaky]

Originally Posted by Lupine

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

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

Yeah I don't see the sense in pulling the processors. Intel can still make some monies off of it, purchase the processor now and wait for new boards to be available.

[sandorski]

No sense Selling a CPU with no available Motherboards. Especially for the less informed who throw the CPU in the Shopping Cart then start E-Mailing about not being able to find the Motherboards for it.

[Razeus]

This will hold up my Macbook Pro purchase that I'm sure Apple had in the works for a refresh.

Something tells me that Intel let this one through the gate with full knowledge.

[Syl66]

NCIX where I purchased my board from has already stepped up and made this announcement.

Intel announced this morning that there is an issue with their P67/H67 chipsets that can cause the SATA 3.0Gb/s controller to fail over time. NCIX has put in place the following measures to ensure that our customers who have already bought NCIX PC systems or standalone motherboards are appropriately cared for.


These Notices Are For All Intel LGA1155 "Sandy Bridge" Customers:
1. Please note that this issue does not affect the LGA1155 CPU itself, nor does it affect any other Intel chipset products (such as P55 or X58).
2. The chipset is believed to be MORE LIKELY to fail with heavy use. To reduce the risk of data corruption or data loss, NCIX recommends that you move all drives to either the Intel SATA3 6.0Gb/s ports or any other 3rd party chipset SATA3 6.0Gb/s ports (check your motherboard manual). It is also recommended that if you must use any of the SATA2 3.0Gb/s ports, you should use them with your least important drives or ones that access read-only media (ie DVD burner).


These Notices Are For All NCIX PC Customers With LGA1155 Systems:
1. Customers who have already purchased their system will be credited with 5000 NCIX Rewards points.
2. Systems that are currently in the assembly phase will have to be approved by the customer before they will be completed & shipped.
3. All systems will be assembled using only the available SATA3 6.0Gb/s ports whenever possible.
4. NCIX will perform complimentary motherboard exchanges once replacements are available from the various manufacturers. Once updated boards are available, please schedule an appointment online or with your local NCIX retail store. If your order was shipped, then NCIX will cover the shipping charges both ways to return the system or motherboard to us for replacement.
5. The 12 month NCIX PC warranty will be extended on ALL Sandy Bridge systems to 18 months to compensate our customers for any inconvenience that is caused by being without their system during a motherboard exchange.


These Notices Are For All NCIX Customers With Standalone LGA1155 Motherboard Purchases:
1. Customers who have already purchased their motherboard will be credited with 2500 NCIX Rewards points.
2. We are currently working with all of our partners to find a solution for customers who have purchased Sandy Bridge components. Please check back to this forum thread for the most up-to date information. Again, we suggest that to reduce the risk of data corruption or data loss, please move all drives to either the Intel SATA3 6.0Gb/s ports or any other 3rd party chipset SATA3 6.0Gb/s ports (check your motherboard manual). It is also recommended that if you must use any of the SATA2 3.0Gb/s ports, you should use them with your least important drives or ones that access read-only media (ie DVD burner).


Please check back periodically in this forum thread as we will be updating it once we have more information. Subject to change without notice.

I've moved my SSD and Apps drive over to the Intel Sata3 ports. I'll leave my burner and general storage drive on the Sata 2 ports as I don't really anticipate any major problems until the board can get replaced.

[Lupine]

Originally Posted by Razeus

This will hold up my Macbook Pro purchase that I'm sure Apple had in the works for a refresh.

Something tells me that Intel let this one through the gate with full knowledge.

Intel isn't that stupid. Please explain the upside?

[noko]

Go figure, bought the DDR3 ram, Win7, just ordered the Sata 3 hard drive and then this comes out . Was going to purchase the mobo/cpu next week.

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by Lupine

Intel isn't that stupid. Please explain the upside?

With a tin foil hat on, I would say financial year end reporting.

[Razeus]

Originally Posted by Lupine

Intel isn't that stupid. Please explain the upside?

Ask yourself this...

Didn't Intel JUST report record earnings for the quarter?

Do you see the coincidence of giving this information AFTER the quarterly report?

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by Razeus

Ask yourself this...

Didn't Intel JUST report record earnings for the quarter?

Do you see the coincidence of giving this information AFTER the quarterly report?

This is the same Intel that has FTC oversight inside the business - onsite, in meetings, remember?

[caveman-jim]

Anand's update on the problem - it's design issue, engineering 'oversight'

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

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.

You can coax the problem out earlier by testing the PCH at increased voltage and temperature levels. By increasing one or both of these values you can simulate load over time and that’s how the problem was initially discovered. Intel believes that any current issues users have with SATA performance/compatibility/reliability are likely unrelated to the hardware bug.

[noko]

5% failure rate, other options available and likely to be used instead, a.k.a sata3. I don't know, what I've read so far would not stop me from purchasing a board and cpu, in my case I would probably never use the sata 2 ability anyways. So why not disable the Intel sata 2, give a sata 2 card out or incorporate another sat 2 device on the mobo which is a mute point since problem has been fixed I do believe with the newer 6 series chipsets. Got to hand it to Intel though for their high standards, also if this is the only problem after high volting it then Intel release one hell of a chipset in the end.

Seems stupid to have all these workable motherboards and cpus sitting around with the motherboards scheduled to be trashed. I can't see retrofitting a new chipset back on the motherboard but who knows.

So how long before Sandy Bridge plateform will be available again?

Ahmmm sell me one of those defective (possible and unlikely) boards for half price, I will remove it off your hands and save you all the trouble

[Lupine]

Sending out a sata2 card WHILE they work on the fix would be a nice interim solution, but still wouldn't remove the need to fully make consumers whole w/ 100% functional hardware.

[Bires]

I don't know...so I have to move my spinning HD to the marvell, but while I wait for a new mobo...4.5GHz Quad core at 63C! I'm so glad I bought early. (so far)

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by Lupine

Sending out a sata2 card WHILE they work on the fix would be a nice interim solution, but still wouldn't remove the need to fully make consumers whole w/ 100% functional hardware.

Plus a BIOS update to disable the affected ports would be good. The SATA card would need to be RAID capable and include tools for moving Intel RAID sets on it, which means it's not going to happen.

As far as interim solution, there is none - this is a metal layer problem, the chip will fail and cause the drives to disappear. This will happen intermittently during operation before final failure. There is no way to fix this without removing the chipset and putting an 'A' stepping or new stepping in place (boards shipped with stepping B).

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

Plus a BIOS update to disable the affected ports would be good. The SATA card would need to be RAID capable and include tools for moving Intel RAID sets on it, which means it's not going to happen.

As far as interim solution, there is none - this is a metal layer problem, the chip will fail and cause the drives to disappear. This will happen intermittently during operation before final failure. There is no way to fix this without removing the chipset and putting an 'A' stepping or new stepping in place (boards shipped with stepping B).

Drive, singular. The whole controller doesn't go belly up, only a single port with the remaining ports remaining functional was my understanding. This is a port by port issue, not whole controller. If it was whole controller, wouldn't the Intel 6Gb ports be affected too?

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by moshpit

Drive, singular. The whole controller doesn't go belly up, only a single port with the remaining ports remaining functional was my understanding. This is a port by port issue, not whole controller. If it was whole controller, wouldn't the Intel 6Gb ports be affected too?

No, because the design separates the two different sets - read Anand's update I posted above.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

No, because the design separates the two different sets - read Anand's update I posted above.

I guess that's what saved our bacon then. Okay.

[caveman-jim]

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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

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]

Originally Posted by noko

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]

Originally Posted by Lupine

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]

Originally Posted by Razeus

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]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

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]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

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?