Monday, January 31st 2011

Intel Identifies Sandy Bridge Chipset Design Error, All Shipments Stopped

As part of ongoing quality assurance, Intel Corporation has discovered a design issue in a recently released support chip, the Intel 6 Series, code-named Cougar Point, and has implemented a silicon fix. In some cases, the Serial-ATA (SATA) ports within the chipsets may degrade over time, potentially impacting the performance or functionality of SATA-linked devices such as hard disk drives and DVD-drives. The chipset is utilized in PCs with Intel's latest Second Generation Intel Core processors, code-named Sandy Bridge. Intel has stopped shipment of the affected support chip from its factories. Intel has corrected the design issue, and has begun manufacturing a new version of the support chip which will resolve the issue. The Sandy Bridge microprocessor is unaffected and no other products are affected by this issue.
The company expects to begin delivering the updated version of the chipset to customers in late February and expects full volume recovery in April. Intel stands behind its products and is committed to product quality. For computer makers and other Intel customers that have bought potentially affected chipsets or systems, Intel will work with its OEM partners to accept the return of the affected chipsets, and plans to support modifications or replacements needed on motherboards or systems. The systems with the affected support chips have only been shipping since January 9th and the company believes that relatively few consumers are impacted by this issue. The only systems sold to an end customer potentially impacted are Second Generation Core i5 and Core i7 quad core based systems. Intel believes that consumers can continue to use their systems with confidence, while working with their computer manufacturer for a permanent solution. For further information consumers should contact Intel at www.intel.com on the support page or contact their OEM manufacturer.

For the first quarter of 2011, Intel expects this issue to reduce revenue by approximately $300 million as the company discontinues production of the current version of the chipset and begins manufacturing the new version. Full-year revenue is not expected to be materially affected by the issue. Total cost to repair and replace affected materials and systems in the market is estimated to be $700 million. Since this issue affected some of the chipset units shipped and produced in the fourth quarter of 2010, the company will take a charge against cost of goods sold, which is expected to reduce the fourth quarter gross margin percentage by approximately 4 percentage points from the previously reported 67.5 percent. The company will also take a charge in the first quarter of 2011which will lower the previously communicated gross margin percentage by 2 percentage points and the full-year gross margin percentage by one percentage point.

Updated 2011 First Quarter and Full Year Outlook
Separately, Intel recently announced that it had completed the acquisition of the Infineon Technologies AG Wireless Solutions business, which will now operate as the Intel Mobile Communications group. The company also expects to complete the acquisition of McAfee by the end of the first quarter.

The effects of the chipset issue and these transactions are incorporated into the company's revised outlook. The company now expects first-quarter revenue to be $11.7 billion, plus or minus $400 million, compared to the previous expectation of $11.5 billion, plus or minus $400 million. Gross margin percentage is now expected to be 61 percent, plus or minus a couple percentage points, compared to the previous expectation of 64 percent, plus or minus a couple percentage points. Spending (R&D plus MG&A) is now expected to be approximately $3.6 billion, compared to the previous expectation of approximately $3.4 billion.

The full-year revenue growth percentage is now expected to be in the mid-to high teens, compared to the company's prior expectation of approximately 10 percent. Full-year gross margin is now expected to be 63 percent, plus or minus a few percentage points, compared to the previous expectation of 65 percent, plus or minus a few percentage points. Spending (R&D plus MG&A) is now expected to be $15.7 billion, plus or minus $200 million, compared to the company's previous expectation of $13.9 billion, plus or minus $200 million. Research and development (R&D) spending is now expected to be approximately $8.2 billion, compared to the previous forecast of $7.3 billion.

All other expectations for the first-quarter and full-year remain unchanged. With the exception of McAfee, the outlook for the first quarter and full year do not include the effect of any acquisitions, divestitures or similar transactions that may be completed after Jan. 31. The acquisition of McAfee is subject to customary closing conditions.
Add your own comment

166 Comments on Intel Identifies Sandy Bridge Chipset Design Error, All Shipments Stopped

#76
bear jesus
If Intel was able to reproduce the issue with stressing the chip then surly high usage would bring the issue out sooner?

If say you run the computer 24/7 with near constant hard drive usage would that not speed things up?

I think the main problem is killing resale value and looking at the sale forum most of us like to sell on our old hardware.
Posted on Reply
#77
Solaris17
Super Dainty Moderator
MindweaverI'll take a cheap faulty in 2 years 1155 board..lol just use sata 6 when your 3.0 SATA controller dies FTW.. :toast:




Just 3.0 SATA controller not the 6.0 from what i've read.
when in doubt sata card it they all have a ludicrous amount of pci-e slots now anyway.
Posted on Reply
#78
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
Solaris17when in doubt sata card it they all have a ludicrous amount of pci-e slots now anyway.
I see a 3ware 9650SE in my future.. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#79
Hayder_Master
that's cuz they want seal people with new socket which is no different from 1156 chipsets, shit on u INTEL
Posted on Reply
#80
arroyo
It looks like that:

Intel = great CPUs + bad chipsets (P55,P67,H67)
AMD = medicore CPUs + great chipsets (890GX, 890FX)

I would like to see a misalliance like this:
Intel 2600K + AMD 890FX board = THAT WOULD BE AWESOME
Posted on Reply
#81
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
newtekie1It isn't so bad, Intel is accepting RMAs on the affected processors. This is why I never buy the first revision of a processor release. Though to be fair, this isn't an issue with the processor, it is a problem with the integrated chipset.



It isn't like AMD hasn't had some pretty big issues with their silicon...TLB anyone?:slap:
at least the TLB bug didn't require me or you to take the said affected part go offline for x number of days to ship it all the way back to the manuf. wait X number of days for them to go oh this was part of that bad batch wait X number of days for it to show back up on your doorstep to get reinstalled into your PC. so instead thanks to intel any of these that have already found there way into a server just went offline because intel fucked up. this is not a little thing this is a big thing letting bugged parts out is an issue that is way there is a pending lawsuit against Nvidias flawed chipsets/IGP's.

the TLB bug required a patch readily available on AMD's website and later built into windows. not that big of a deal for a server environment chipset taking a shit on you BIG DEAL.
Posted on Reply
#82
meran
wow i was supposed to buy this shit
Posted on Reply
#83
LAN_deRf_HA
Why did newegg just take down the SB procs? I get the boards, but not the cpus.
Posted on Reply
#84
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
LAN_deRf_HAWhy did newegg just take down the SB procs? I get the boards, but not the cpus.
Yea, but what good is a processor with out a MB? I would say they did this to help there Customer support team.

They are throwing a party at the AMD camp! :roll: I'm not laughing to hard i have a P67 board that arrived today.. :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#85
LAN_deRf_HA
When amd had a problem with their actual processors I don't recall them being taken down. Shit makes no sense. And newegg shouldn't care that they can't sell boards with the cpus. If someone wants to buy a cpu let them, this is just a needless loss in sales.
Posted on Reply
#86
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
I never said that it was right. Maybe they are looking back at that very problem and want to handle it different with this problem. idk?
Posted on Reply
#87
niko084
Read about this earlier today...

Kinda sad I just ordered a 2600K and an ASUS P8P67 PRO...
Guess I'll have to see and if it starts to screw up I'll warranty it :-/
Posted on Reply
#88
meran
niko084Read about this earlier today...

Kinda sad I just ordered a 2600K and an ASUS P8P67 PRO...
Guess I'll have to see and if it starts to screw up I'll warranty it :-/
after destroying all your hdds:banghead::twitch::cry:
Posted on Reply
#89
KieX
From UK retailer's message about the news:
Motherboards with devices connected to Ports 0 & 1 remain unaffected.
source

So on most motherboards, that is 2 intel ports plus 2 marvel ports (unaffected)... if I count properly you need 5 or more hard drives to have a small chance of developing a fault over 3 years (estimated).

I don't see why the fuss. :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#90
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
This reminds me of the Intel Pentium chip problem way back. It is almost undetectable to the end user. Only a few can notice it. Glad to see Intel is doing the right thing, unlike last time this happened. Last time they denied it.
Posted on Reply
#91
niko084
meranafter destroying all your hdds:banghead::twitch::cry:
Doesn't say anything of the sort simply degrading performance.
Don't make it sound to be some epic huge unrecoverable problem.
Posted on Reply
#92
PaulieG
meranafter destroying all your hdds:banghead::twitch::cry:
Read the information in a little detail, it will not destroy drives. It will degrade performance. So, no real risk to hardware. It's also unclear as to what percentage of boards may experience this problem at all. I'm gonna hold on to my chip and board, and not overreact because I'm happy with it. When March or April comes, and the board partners decide how they are going to handle recalls, then I will probably send it in for replacement.
Posted on Reply
#93
Psychoholic
I am glad i purchased mine when i did, seeing as how newegg took them down.

Should anything happen, it will just give me an excuse to move to SATA 6GB :)
Posted on Reply
#94
LAN_deRf_HA
I'm bugged mostly by resale value decrease. I'm fine with using the sata 6 if I even need to. Be nice if they could find some way to test if your particular board will be one of the 15% possibly effected after 3 years. Man this really does sound like a minor issue.
Posted on Reply
#95
TheGuruStud
newtekie1It isn't like AMD hasn't had some pretty big issues with their silicon...TLB anyone?:slap:
You mean the bug where you had to be at 100% load and all cores virtualized with pigs flying overhead for the error to occur?

Yeah, whew, catastrophe averted getting that TLB fixed. That was all intel hype.
Posted on Reply
#97
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
LAN_deRf_HAExplanation of the exact cause of the issue www.anandtech.com/show/4143/the-source-of-intels-cougar-point-sata-bug

Wonder if a bios change could fix it, though they'd have probably suggested it already. Undervolting may be sufficient to indefinitely hold it off.
after reading that undervolting wouldn't do anything the bias is fucked up and now its leaking they need to replace the gate.
If you have a desktop system with six SATA ports driven off of P67/H67 chipset, there’s a chance (at least 5%) that during normal use some of the 3Gbps ports will stop working over the course of 3 years. The longer you use the ports, the higher that percentage will be. If you fall into this category, chances are your motherboard manufacturer will set up some sort of an exchange where you get a fixed board. The motherboard manufacturer could simply desolder your 6-series chipset and replace it with a newer stepping if it wanted to be frugal.
that sounds pretty shitty use more than port 0/1 and you could end up with just ports 0/1...as for the people asking earlier guess that means all of the overclockers pushing these boards will never notice :D
Posted on Reply
#98
Thefumigator
Just some observations...
What about making them work as SATA 1.0 (150m/s), it may be slow for some SSD, but still enough for most regular HDD and DVD rewriters of course... Not sure if its possible, I've never seen on bios cmos setup an option to turn your SATA 2.0 connectors to SATA 1.0 (maybe on windows device manager...). Also not even sure if this could help the chipset.

Buggy chipsets... what's next? buggy VGAs? Not that I found ok to see buggy hardware around, but I believe that is not big deal, if for some reason I get something buggy I would just solve it with a workaround... my Phenom 9500 worked ok for me, and that intel mobo sounds like an amazing deal if e-tailers do price drop for clearance. I would fix it with a pair of cheap SATA controllers I have sitting somewhere...
Posted on Reply
#99
bear jesus
One thing that is confusing me is everyone quoting 3 years as a definitive thing, if users have been having issues reporting it to Intel and then Intel reproducing the problem all within a month that would suggest to me if you have drives under heavy use on those ports it will wear them down pretty fast.

I know I'm far from a good example and not even using the chip in question but my PC runs 24/7 and is always either reading or writing to the primary drive which i always put on the first port of the on chip controller, would that mean if i had given in and bought something from the sandy bridge line i would be at a higher risk of wearing out the connection than most normal users?
Posted on Reply
#100
Unregistered
You know i think its about time they start making motherboards with sockets for chipsets along with unlimited CPU bandwidth, that way when its time to upgrade we wont have to buy a whole new board with practically the same features.
Posted on Edit | Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 27th, 2024 17:13 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts