Asus, Gigabyte To Replace All Sandy Bridge Boards

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Asus, Gigabyte To Replace All Sandy Bridge Boards

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 2, 2011 @09:00AM from the return-to-sender dept.

J. Dzhugashvili writes "In the wake of Intel's announcement that all existing Sandy Bridge chipsets have a bug that causes degraded Serial ATA performance, top-tier motherboard makers Asus and Gigabyte have made public statements regarding their return policy for affected boards. Asus is promising 'hassle-free return and/or replacement', while Gigabyte says owners of affected boards are entitled to a full refund or replacement—and it recommends that users seek refunds. Both companies are advising users to contact the original place of purchase to proceed. On a related note, Gigabyte has announced that new Sandy Bridge motherboards with bug-free chipsets will be available in volume in April."

180 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

fp by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:02 · Score: 0, Offtopic

props to all dead homiez
More tech detail by FrankSchwab · 2011-02-02 09:04 · Score: 5, Informative

For the chipheads, Anandtech has a good description of the underlying problem:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/the-source-of-intels-cougar-point-sata-bug

--
And the worms ate into his brain.
1. Re:More tech detail by icebike · 2011-02-02 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  Very good article.
  I wonder if the wisest thing would be to just sit on one of those board till April, especially if your board is not yet experiencing the slow down. The article linked above suggests this problem gets worse with age.
  But with replacement boards due in April I would opt for waiting. Of course some people can't/won't change out their own boards and warranty issues might not allow them to do so, but sending it back now gets you a refund, but you are still stuck without your computer.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Re:More tech detail by __aamnbm3774 · 2011-02-02 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised these sorts of things don't happen more often.
  
  There is so much going on with motherboards anymore, and there must be 1000+ motherboard variations in each generation. It's amazing that things like clock timings don't affect other portions of the board more frequently. Crazy.
3. Re:More tech detail by TheGratefulNet · 2011-02-02 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  if its a phase lock loop drift, you WILL get errors. its not about 'if'.
  just replace it. this is a 'bad clock' essentially.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
4. Re:More tech detail by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  I doubt it the leakage current increases over time. This would happen only if the gate oxide voltage was too high, causing some sort of soft breakdown. This requires a VERY high voltage.
  N/PBTI is a reliability issue that causes the transistor threshold voltage (voltage at which it turns on) to *increase* over time, not decrease; the leakage current is dependent upon threshold voltage; higher Vth, higher I_leak. Thus, leakage current (I_leak) should be decreasing with time due to P/NBTI.
  I think it is that somewhere somebody screwed up with the sizing of that transistor, and failed to simulate that leakage path properly over process and temperature.
  In conclusion, Intel blames it on "over time" when it really is a process variation and temperature (PVT) problem, meaning they messed up from the get-go. Unfortunately, someone's gonna be in alot of trouble..
5. Re:More tech detail by Deflatamouse · 2011-02-02 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Though there are a lot of motherboard variations, they are all built with mostly standard parts with well published design guidelines, e.g. an Intel reference design. I would say most boards out there are simply a small variation from the reference design. The chipsets are also likely designed with the tolerance for trace length, clock, voltage variations, etc.
6. Re:More tech detail by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  OOps, i mean higher Vth, LOWER I_leak. Editing fail.
7. Re:More tech detail by treeves · 2011-02-02 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't understand what the article said about just turning off the voltage to the transistor at issue to fix the problem.
  How is letting the transistor fail different from disabling it by turning off the voltage to it?
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
8. Re:More tech detail by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  Just speculating here, but presumably the transistor should be off normally. Over time, it leaks more and more and the current is affecting the operation of the circuit downstream.
9. Re:More tech detail by karnal · 2011-02-02 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  The transistor is embedded in the Northbridge somewhere - there's no physical way to turn it off without replacing the chip. They state in the article that it's as simple as turning it off - and I've seen others tripped up by this (in comments on the site) but replacement is still required.
  
  --
  Karnal
10. Re:More tech detail by treeves · 2011-02-02 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  OK, but I still don't understand why it would solve the problem even if it were possible. If you turn it off, you lose that SATA port. If it fails, you lose that SATA port. What's the difference? The fact that you know what the problem is in the former case, but not in the latter, so you can choose a different port?
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
11. Re:More tech detail by sjames · 2011-02-02 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  But it isn't. It's about a fet with a too thin insulator layer such that it's leakage current slowly but steadily grows. Eventually it causes increasing problems with the PLL, first resulting in a slowdown, then failure. It's not likely to reach significance between now and April.
12. Re:More tech detail by sjames · 2011-02-02 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  It fails shorted. Presumably it eventually pulls the voltage down enough to cause other problems.
13. Re:More tech detail by nojayuk · 2011-02-02 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  According to the Anandtech article the transistor in question is in the Phase Locked Loop (PLL) circuitry for the four SATA2 3Gbps controllers. When it dies due to overvoltage and heat it takes all four SATA channels with it since it cripples the PLL which provides the clocks for the SATA controller. The SATA3 6Gbps controller has its own PLL and so its clocking system is not affected.
  To add to the confusion that particular section of PLL is apparently redundant, part of an older mask revision that didn't get cleaned up when they moved from rev A to rev B. This happens a lot in chip-making and leaving redundant circuitry in place doesn't normally cause problems. The thing that must be annoying the Intel engineers the most is that when this useless and unwanted transistor fails it pulls down the rest of the PLL subsystem that is totally necessary for the system to work properly.
14. Re:More tech detail by AmiMoJo · 2011-02-03 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Things like this do happen more frequently than widely reported, it's just that some people are better at covering it up.
  I used to repair computers for a living so I saw the same faults over and over again. There are three examples in the last decade I can think of.
  The capacitor plague which resulted in the majority of mobos produced between about 2000-2005 dying after some time was largely unreported. It was down to a bad mix of chemicals that caused them to expand and leak after a while, resulting in instability as voltage regulation deteriorated.
  Then there are Toshiba laptops. For about five years they were making them with very dense heatsinks that tended to clog up with dust after a while. About 75% of stability problems we saw in Toshibas could be fixed by cleaning their CPU HSF. Later models didn't fix the problem but made the HSF easier to get at (early ones needed the mobo removing).
  nVidia pulled off one of the biggest over-ups with its defective chipsets. HP was the worst affected manufacturer because 95% of the laptops they sold since 2007 have nVidia chipsets. The flaw is something to do with the way they are soldered to the motherboard. Basically they have little balls of solder that fail due to reapeated heating and cooling. Sony's PS3 and Microsoft's XBOX 360 had similar issues. They can be fixed temporarily by re-flowing the solder (sometimes called re-balling) and installing a better thermal shim, but eventually they fail again. Typically this happens just outside the basic 1 year warranty, and since most people don't seem to know that the statutory minimum is 2 years in the EU HP will try to avoid repairing it. Even if they do fix it they just install another refurbished mobo with the same fault and hope it lasts until the end of the warranty.
  I think the main reason these things don't get more coverage is that people simply don't realise they are common faults.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
15. Re:More tech detail by petermgreen · 2011-02-03 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  sometimes called re-balling
  Reballing is more than just reflowing the solder, it is the complete removal of the chip, replacement of the solder balls and resoldering of the chip. Reballing is likely to be a much longer term fix than attempting to reflow the existing solder, especially if done with leaded solder but it's also far more effort.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I'll take one! by Dr.+Spork · 2011-02-02 09:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wouldn't it make more sense to offer some sort of a substantial rebate and a correctly functioning SATA raid PCI-E card? Some of these motherboards - that are clearly getting scrapped - were very fancy. This seems like a terrible waste, since those boards basically worked.
1. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  I sincerely doubt they'll scrap them. All that is really needed is to desolder the main chipset chip and then resolder a fixed chip in. A fairly trivial fix that will probably cost a lot less than the cost of manufacturing a whole new board. Considering the volume of boards we're talking about (millions), it is probably worth setting up a whole manufacturing lines for replacing these chips.
2. Re:I'll take one! by drinkypoo · 2011-02-02 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's not inconceivable that they will disable those ports, perhaps with software and epoxy, and sell them again to some other market...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:I'll take one! by gstrickler · 2011-02-02 09:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  These motherboards will not be scrapped. The manufacturers have the tools and facilities to remove the defective chips and replace them. The defective chips may be scrapped, but the boards will be refurbished and used as replacement units.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
4. Re:I'll take one! by icebike · 2011-02-02 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yup.
  Fix the early returns as replacements for the later ones. Warranty repairs do not need to be new parts, just warranted parts.
  But De-soldering is a messy task unless they set up a custom jig for each board type.
  After you take out all the pluggable memory, CPUs, and video controllers, what is left is not that expensive. It might be less expensive to trash the board, file a claim with Intel and make new board.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
5. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  I think it could lead to warranty issues potentially or maybe Intel said recall them all, end of story. If I was affected I would want a new board.
6. Re:I'll take one! by mewsenews · 2011-02-02 09:22 · Score: 3
  
  Handing out SATA cards would certainly be cheaper, but respectable companies repair or replace a product with defects.
7. Re:I'll take one! by francium+de+neobie · 2011-02-02 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  An add-on card means one more component to fail, one more component to find drivers for, more stuff inside the case, more power usage, and probably worse performance as well.
  
  No thanks. I'd take the replacement in April.
8. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  Respectable companies would give the option. Would i rather use one of the PCI slots that are empty and get a 20 dollar bill or disassemble my entire computer and ship something off? Best case they cross ship and send me a box ready to go, but that still means tearing apart my computer and taking a box to be shipped. Id rather pop in a PCI card.
9. Re:I'll take one! by LWATCDR · 2011-02-02 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Some people will not want that solution and others will shout about Intel trying to cheap out. With this many products it is just simpler to deal with one solution for everyone. Hey if you don't want to send it in I doubt that they will send the motherboard police to your home and make you.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
10. Re:I'll take one! by Fallen+Kell · 2011-02-02 09:30 · Score: 2
  
  Because there is a severe limit on PCI-e lanes on these chipsets. As it already stands, you are limited to two 8xPCI-e slots in use on the basic P67 chipset. On the H67 if you enable the internal CPU graphics, you are limited to one 8xPCI-e slot. That isn't much room left for a SATA controller card if someone plans on having a sound card or HD video capture card... This is also why on the higher end motherboards, they are including an additional bridge chip to expand the PCI-e lanes.
  
  --
  We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
11. Re:I'll take one! by commodore64_love · 2011-02-02 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  >>>This seems like a terrible waste
  Not all will be scrapped. In the above article: "If a design only uses ports 0 & 1 off the chipset (the unaffected ports), then the end user would never encounter an issue and may not even be recalled."
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
12. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  It is ALWAYS cheaper to fix the board! Especially since this is just the chipset. You desolder the chipset, put in the new and and resolder it. There are tools to do this job efficiently, even for ballgrid chips. A few minutes to fix a board is not that long.
  These boards will be produced for long period of time so a few dozen people just fixing old ones is all that is needed, and it saves the company millions (you still get maximum money from Intel).
13. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike *Cough* Apple *Cough*
14. Re:I'll take one! by Lord+Byron+II · 2011-02-02 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  Considering that AMD's Bulldozer is coming out in May (most likely), it might make more sense, if you haven't already bought Sandy Bridge, to wait and see how AMD's chips stack up.
15. Re:I'll take one! by TheGratefulNet · 2011-02-02 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  are you sure?
  it seems quite uneconomical to repair boards like this that cost in the $100 range.
  a multi thousand dollar cisco router board, yes, you'd rework that.
  a $100 commodity mobo? I doubt it. not only do you have to unsolder the chip, clean the board and resolder it but you have to fully test it again, too. does that seem worthwhile to you, for a $100 board? I don't know their success rate but I could see a number of the reworked boards failing for this or other reasons and so its a double loss.
  when you start out with a fresh clean factory board, you can make them fast and know they are right. when you rework, unless its fully automated (is it?) - its going to be error prone and expensive.
  boards are replaced whole. almost no one works at the board level anymore.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
16. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  Not exactly. Those 16 PCIe lanes you are talking about have nothing to do with the P67 chipset. They are in the CPU itself, and this was first introduced in the 1156 socket CPUs. Before then all PCIe traffic went through the chipset.
  In addition to the 16 PCIe lanes w/ direct CPU access (this is basically dedicated for graphics) there are an additional 8 PCIe lanes in the P67 chipset which is plenty to deal w/ any Sata cards, etc.
  http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item16058/p67-block-diagram.png
  Some of the more expensive boards w/ several x16 slots do use bridge chips to expand the 16 CPU PCIe lanes to 32 lanes, but there is still only 16 lanes into the CPU, so I have little faith in these band-aid solutions. They add an additional layer, more complexity, and more latency. I didn't like the older nVidia chipsets (680i, 780i) as they were very buggy, and so I have little faith in their add-on NF200 chipset boards. Hydra hasn't been anything it was hyped to be either.
  It has been shown that 16 PCIe2.0 lanes is plenty for 2 top-tier graphics cards in SLI/X-fire. If you want more than that then move onto a 1366 system or wait for the new 2011 socket later this year. Personally, I will always stick w/ 1 graphics card. SLI/X-fire in and of itself is buggy and a PITA.
17. Re:I'll take one! by gstrickler · 2011-02-02 10:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  First, you don't scrap a $100 motherboard over the labor cost of removing and replacing one component (which Intel is providing for free). I'll cost at most $10 to replace the chipset, probably less than $5. Add another $5-$10 for testing and packaging, and for under $20 cost to the manufacturer you have motherboard that you can sell for a whole lot more than $20.
  Second, these boards typically start upwards of $100 and go up to $300
  Third, at the very least, they'll cut the traces going to the 3Gb SATA ports and/or remove those ports, re-label the board with different model number, put on an updated BIOS that disables the 3Gb SATA, and sell them to a secondary market with only the 6Gb SATA ports active. These could be sold in markets were prices are lower, sold to a small clone vendor building cheap systems, or sold retail as "refurbished" at a discounted price.
  Anyway you look at it, most of these boards are not simply going to be scrapped.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
18. Re:I'll take one! by sexconker · 2011-02-02 10:37 · Score: 2
  
  These boards will be produced for long period of time
  So the 5 seconds between Intel's current socket and Intel's new, 100% incompatible, exactly-the-same socket is a "long period of time" now?
19. Re:I'll take one! by multipartmixed · 2011-02-02 10:37 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know - if you've got, say, a million boards in the pipeline and you can fix them for $20 each then sell them for $60, it seems like there would be some money to be made.
  "Fix for $20" might seem unreasonable, but I don't think so, based on the economies of scale available to Asus and Gigabyte. They already have 100% of the requisite QA/QC ability, and access to cheap labour. I'm sure Intel will give them the chips for free.
  That said, the other poster's idea is more likely IMHO - re-badge the boards, rip off the defective ports, and sell them as-is.
  
  --
  
  Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
20. Re:I'll take one! by Rudeboy777 · 2011-02-02 10:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Perhaps, but many of these are not $100 motherboards. High-end P67 boards run in the $200-300 range.
  This also would not be a small scale refurb operation -- thousands of identical boards could be processed in an assembly-line fashion making this much more cost-effective than a single worker refurbishing whatever came in the mail that day.
  
  --
  From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
21. Re:I'll take one! by X0563511 · 2011-02-02 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of chip is it?
  You have fun desoldering a BGA in the middle of a bunch of other SMD/SMT components.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
22. Re:I'll take one! by Dr.+Spork · 2011-02-02 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. If the price were right, I might be interested. But if they were going to do that, it would have saved them lots of trouble to offer this to existing owners along with a large refund. I mean, if you bought a Sandy Bridge chip, you don't want to wait until April to have a board to plug it into, right?
23. Re:I'll take one! by h4rr4r · 2011-02-02 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  Intel is coming out with yet another socket so soon?
  Holy hell, no wonder I don't buy them that often.
24. Re:I'll take one! by Dr.+Spork · 2011-02-02 11:02 · Score: 2
  
  Can they really desolder the chipset and solder on a new one, and do all this with acceptable reliability? These things are at least seven layer circuit boards. Do all the chipset pins even go through all the layers to make desoldering possible?
25. Re:I'll take one! by Archangel+Michael · 2011-02-02 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Labor. Obviously time is worth nothing to you. Stop wasting ours. Cost of the repairs will also include shipping, handling, accounting ..... you know ... overhead.
  Grind the stuff up, and recycle.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
26. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Its actually not that difficult. They just have to remove the BGA and put on a new one. The new one will be put on by a pick and place since no one hand solders BGAs of that size. Removing the BGA isn't that difficult and labor is cheap in Asia.
27. Re:I'll take one! by Rockoon · 2011-02-02 11:15 · Score: 2
  
  The 8 core bulldozer is rumored to benchmark 1.5x faster than an i7-950 (as well as 1.5x the similarly performing Phenom II x6 1100T) .. this info was supposedly leaked a few days ago.
  
  Could be a fake, but I wouldn't be surprised given the PassMark numbers for the i7-950 (6346 @ $286), the Phenom II x6 1100T (6174 @ $260), and the i7-980X (10472 @ $1000)
  
  AMD is moving to the same process size that Intel has been enjoying, and a smaller process size usually means large performance increments (just as it did with Intel), AMD has been working on this one for a very long time and they havent redesigned their architecture since the athlon 64's, so I think there is a good chance that the rumors or more or less true. AMD will likely be offering a single chip that can attain 9000..10000 on PassMark, territory that Intel had an exclusive to on single-CPU systems this past year.
  
  The most important thing, tho, is price. If AMD drops these off at $300 like I suspect then Intel will have to seriously rethink its pricing strategy at the high end, but if AMD can't push them out for under $500 then Intel probably has nothing to worry about with its Sandy's pushing 9000+ PassMark's for less.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
28. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  I'll cost at most $10 to replace the chipset, probably less than $5
  Wow, you work cheap - Do you do housework?
29. Re:I'll take one! by Fallingwater · 2011-02-02 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Can't they just put the boards in the ovens and simply lift the damaged chip off?
30. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Modern ICs are surface mount, and have no pins that go through the PCB at all. This is most likely a BGA.
31. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  Everything sounds cheap if you're only counting cost of materials.
32. Re:I'll take one! by gstrickler · 2011-02-02 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'll take at most 10 mins with the right equipment. The people getting paid to do that aren't getting $60/hr, they might be getting $20-$30/hr IF they're in the US. So, how much labor cost is that? In all likelihood, these boards will be boxed up, shipped back to China repaired by people making a whole lot less than that.
  The costs I cited include shipping, labor, packaging, etc. Even if I'm way low on the costs, and it costs $50 per board including shipping, packaging, labor, etc. that's still 1/3 to 1/6 what those boards sell for.
  I know this is the internet, and slashdot isn't what it used to be, so this is asking a lot, but don't post about things you clearly know nothing about.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
33. Re:I'll take one! by gstrickler · 2011-02-02 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  See my reply to the other commenter.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
34. Re:I'll take one! by gstrickler · 2011-02-02 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yes they can. That's how almost every PCB made is repaired. Most components today are surface mount, the pins don't go through any layers of the board.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
35. Re:I'll take one! by gstrickler · 2011-02-02 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Comprehension fail! There is labor and material costs cited in my post.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
36. Re:I'll take one! by jimmydevice · 2011-02-02 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Pin through hole died in the late 90's. Everything is surface mount.
37. Re:I'll take one! by jimmydevice · 2011-02-02 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Doh! except some discreets, like caps.
38. Re:I'll take one! by gstrickler · 2011-02-02 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  boards are replaced whole. almost no one works at the board level anymore.
  You might want to let the companies hiring techs who do component level repair know about that.
  In the field, it's all board/module level, but they don't just take those boards and toss them out, they send them back to the manufacturer or a repair depot where the majority of them are repaired, only those that are too badly damaged or no longer needed are scrapped.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
39. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  Yes,
  Desoldering and replacing chips on a board is entirely possible. I have actually done it, by hand, on the PCB for a hard-drive to replace a particular controller that had literally melted. The drive worked afterward.
40. Re:I'll take one! by drinkypoo · 2011-02-02 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well Intel is footing the bill for replacements so it's better all around if they just offer a trade-in.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
41. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  Can they really desolder the chipset and solder on a new one, and do all this with acceptable reliability?
  
  Yes. I didn't think this was all that possible either. We had an 14 layer custom board made(by a local shop in Santa Clara) with three Xilinx Virtex 5 FPGAs and about 200 other components. Later we needed a larger FPGA so we sent it back and they swapped just the FPGA with a larger one that is pin compatible. Both were FF1760, which is almost 2000 pins on a BGA package. They were able to do this in a week for a one off design.
42. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  when you start out with a fresh clean factory board, you can make them fast and know they are right.
  These boards being recalled were "fresh clean factory boards", made fast and they know they are not right...
43. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 15:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You have to have tight control of the rework temperatures and times, or you get intermetallic growth which hurts reliability. We verify all of our solder stations every eight hours using a calibrated thermocouple just to be safe. But yes, reworked solder joints can be very reliable.
  We make the electronics that go into certain very valuable aircraft. We do low-volume, high-mix production, with batch sizes as low as one board. Since it's hard to work out the kinks in a production process until you've built a few hundred or thousand boards, our units generally have as many as 14 defects on EACH UNIT. Most of those just need a quick touchup with a soldering iron, but we often have to replace ball-grid-array and pin-grid-array processors. The reworked units then go into production aircraft, and (knock on wood) function reliably for decades.
  Posting as AC for obvious reasons.
44. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  Can they really desolder the chipset and solder on a new one,
  
  Yes, they can.
  and do all this with acceptable reliability?
  Yes.
  
  These things are at least seven layer circuit boards. Do all the chipset pins even go through all the layers to make desoldering possible?
  Chipset Pins? No.. These would be surface mount devices making the number of layers in the motherboard irrelevant
45. Re:I'll take one! by dbc · 2011-02-02 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  The technology exists, but what does it cost? Motherboards are typically very low margin. Of course, these are high-end, higher margin boards. But in the end, you have to look at the cost of: receiving, handling to stage in to rework, doing the actual rework with sophisticated tools and well trained operators, QA and burn-in, and packaging. And you have to do all that and resell the board at a price such that the reworked board has equal margin to a newly manufactured board, or it simply doesn't make economic sense.
  BGA rework makes sense for prototypes where the dollars expended buy schedule. But rework on high volume roboticly assembled electronics usually doesn't pencil out.
46. Re:I'll take one! by EETech1 · 2011-02-02 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  Im guessing I could do 10 / hr if I set up to rework them, possibly more if I had hundreds to run in batches.
47. Re:I'll take one! by adolf · 2011-02-02 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  But De-soldering is a messy task unless they set up a custom jig for each board type.
  Building new motherboards is a messy task unless they set up a custom assembly line for each board type, and you think a "custom jig" to rework these tainted boards is a showstopper? Hah.
  Thanks for posting!
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
48. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 19:10 · Score: 0
  
  Can they really desolder the chipset and solder on a new one, and do all this with acceptable reliability? These things are at least seven layer circuit boards. Do all the chipset pins even go through all the layers to make desoldering possible?
  They are likely surface mount chips. The layers in the PCB go towards routing the top-mounted vias around the board. Reworking and reballing SMT components is not without risk but is hardly an unusual operation.
49. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 19:22 · Score: 0
  
  ... since those boards basically worked.
  Which is precisely why Intel does full recall. These things would end up being sold and resold in some marketplaces, all the while damaging Intel reputation and undermining the whole Sandy Bridge product generation.
50. Re:I'll take one! by Khyber · 2011-02-02 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  "Labor. Obviously time is worth nothing to you."
  Wanna know how I know you don't work in this field?
  HINT: Optoelectronics and SMD/SMT is what I do for a living right now.
  We have this thing called AUTOMATION. Labor costs? Pretty much non-existent.
  Even me refurbishing an LED panel BY HAND is cheaper than scrapping it and ordering new stuff.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
51. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 19:50 · Score: 0
  
  These things are BGAs, there are no pins to go anywhere. Replacing a BGA with the right equipment is not difficult.
  You can find videos of it on youtube.
52. Re:I'll take one! by sjames · 2011-02-02 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably bga, meaning surface mounted under the chip. They can just cook the old chip since it's scrap, but they'll have to very carefully clean the pads and then solder the new chip on in an oven.
53. Re:I'll take one! by Tycho · 2011-02-02 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  Do Gigabyte and Asus err... Foxconn, Pegatron, Quanta, et al. own enough equipment to do the desoldering, cleaning, soldering, and X-ray inspections necessary to do this work at a reasonable rate? I doubt that the actual board manufacturers like Foxconn do very much desoldering and other types of rework on a large scale in their normal manufacturing operations. Next, if the manufacturers must look outside their companies, is there enough equipment out there up to the task of reworking these boards at a reasonable cost and rate? Next, is the cost of reworking a board less than the cost of scrapping and recycling the bad boards and building an entirely new board and taking whatever refund Intel offers? I realize that while Intel will replace the bad chips, if Intel is willing or Intel can be made to be willing to foot the cost of manufacturing an entirely new board, why rework these boards with defective chipsets? Maybe even the manufacturers could weasel some lower prices on the 6 series chipsets. It isn't like the 6 series chipsets are much more than an ICH9 southbridge with PCIe 5Gb/s links as opposed to the 2.5Gb/s links found in older chipsets. For that matter, Sandy Bridge should have required a new socket or even an Intel chipset, aside from the DMI bus used to connect to the processor having potentially slightly different software protocols that PCIe.
  Heck, the AMD SB850, which is several months older than the Intel 6 series of chips has links electrically identical to PCIe that run at 5Gb/s and hypothetically could be made to work with Sandy Bridge. The SB850 also has six 6Gb/s SATA ports instead of the half-assed SATA setup Intel uses.
  
  --
  Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
54. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 22:31 · Score: 0
  
  They're surface mount, not through-hole. Easy enough to rework. But doing it on a mass level doesn't really reduce the labour costs so on something like this, it's still not economical on items in this price range.
55. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 23:44 · Score: 0
  
  There are not chipset pins. These are BGA packages, with only solder balls between the chip and the board. It's all on the surface of the top layer.
56. Re:I'll take one! by petermgreen · 2011-02-03 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Afaict it was just over 2 years from the release of the first LGA1156 processors to the release of the first LGA1155 processors.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
57. Re:I'll take one! by petermgreen · 2011-02-03 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of chip is it?
  Some sort of BGA with a huge number of balls ;). It's the only way for chips with this many connections.
  You have fun desoldering a BGA in the middle of a bunch of other SMD/SMT components.
  Preheat the board to 150C or so to reduce the the temperature gradiants. Then heat the chip you want to remove with hot air and lift it off, doesn't seem a big deal to me. Especially as if they are doing it en-masse they will almost certainly build special jigs to apply just the right ammount of heat and lift it straight off. Solder has quite a bit of surface tension so as long as you don't touch the other components nearby they should stay in place fine.
  The trickier bit is going to be cleaning things up and soldering on the new chip but even that shouldn't be too hard.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
58. Re:I'll take one! by petermgreen · 2011-02-03 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Generally the only stuff that is through hole these days is stuff that needs to be mechanically sturdy and has relatively few pins, connectors, large electrolytic capacitors etc.
  The vast majority of capacitors on a modern board will be surface mount, it's just those huge electrolytics in the power circuits that aren't.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
59. Re:I'll take one! by petermgreen · 2011-02-03 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  there are an additional 8 PCIe lanes in the P67 chipset which is plenty to deal w/ any Sata cards, etc.
  Which sounds like a lot and it would be if intel was including all the stuff a typical board has in the chipset.
  But once the motherboard manufacturer adds on USB3, eSATA, extra SATA 6G, firewire, PCI etc there aren't many PCIe lanes left for cards. . For example on the ASUS P8P67 pro if you want to use an x4 card at full bandwidth you lose the front USB3, the esata and both of your two x1 slots. Some manufacturers use bridge chips for the onboard stuff to ease this but afaict only on the higher end boards.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
60. Re:I'll take one! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-03 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  Pins? The world should be so lucky. BGA, right? If they rework the boards, the yield will be so-so.
61. Re:I'll take one! by sexconker · 2011-02-03 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  The point is there is no reason to switch from 1156 to 1155 pins.
  And even if there were a reason, there's no reason not to be compatible (beyond the few extra cents it would cost per part).
  AMD sockets have lasted a long time and have great compatibility. You can generally use their use sockets with different generations of CPUs and vice versa. AMD's doin' it very right in this regard.
62. Re:I'll take one! by DarthVain · 2011-02-03 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  They are probably being reimbursed by Intel for the defect. If it was a replacement PCI-E card and refund it would be whoever makes the card (likely not Gigabyte or Asus) and the consumer that would be getting the money from Intel. Hence the decision. I'm guessing, but probably not far from the mark.
  As a consumer I would probably rather the card and the money, as that way I don't have weeks of downtime while this MB exchange takes place. I would be interested to hear if consumers are on the hook for the shipping as well, as they usually are when manufacturer is involved. So rather than shipping old board out and new board in, they would just ship the card and money out on proof of purchase.
  Anyway I almost pulled the trigger on one of these boards, so I am a little glad I didn't now. I'll wait till spring and get one then.
63. Re:I'll take one! by gstrickler · 2011-02-03 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  There doesn't have to be more than an hour of downtime. The boards have not yet failed, it's just likely that they will within 3 years. Also, it's only to 3GB SATA ports that have an issue, the pair of 6GB ports work fine. Finally, you can wait until replacement boards are available, take it to the store and exchange it. The only downtime is for you to remove the board, exchange it at the place of purchase, and reinstall it. If you purchased mail order, you can buy a new one, then get a refund on your old one. You're either temporarily down, or temporarily out some money, but you get to choose.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
64. Re:I'll take one! by DarthVain · 2011-02-03 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  LOL!
  Have you ever replaced anything through warranty? Unless they do some special deal, that is not happening. The store already sold it to you, they are done, unless the store has warranty, and if the parts are OEM you are out of luck! You're shipping that sucker away and then back again, and it will take weeks.
  Also I don't know how many hard drives you have, buy I know I can't function with only 2 6GB ports. Not even close.
  I don't think any said they would offer a refund, and I doubt any will. That would be the EASIEST solution. But then you might not buy another ASUS or MSI or whatever, not going to happen.
  EVEN if you get a PCI-E card through rebate or warranty, the problem is it now takes up a SLI slot, and slows your 16x to 8x on your other, IF you even have two, which not all do.
  Here is why it won't be a refund. Intel set aside 700 million and sold like 8 million, which means they have a pot of about 85$ per board for repair. So if you bought a 120$ board maybe not a big deal, kinda a big deal if you bought a 220$ board however. Also that's assuming desktops. How many of those are laptops? Not so easy to replace or repair. Though I have heard that some don't even use the 3GB ports, so wouldn't be effected at all.
  Anyway a mess. Its good that Intel has come forward. However what is going to be more telling is how different manufacturers plan on dealing with the situation, as it seems each is doing their own thing. From a positive perspective, I will get to see which ones are jerks when I go to buy my bug free version in April. I think it goes without saying that those that handle this well, will be favorably looked upon when the purchasing decision comes around.
65. Re:I'll take one! by gstrickler · 2011-02-03 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  And you clearly didn't RTFA.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
66. Re:I'll take one! by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · 2011-02-04 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Labor. Obviously time is worth nothing to you. Stop wasting ours. Cost of the repairs will also include shipping, handling, accounting ..... you know ... overhead.
  Grind the stuff up, and recycle.
  All of that will be done in China by people being paid $5 a day. Do you know what it costs to ship a board to China and back in a container with 25,000 other boards? Pretty close to nothing.
  
  --
  "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
Unexpected mishap by korgitser · 2011-02-02 09:07 · Score: 1

I thought going for cougars was a safe bet.

--
FCKGW 09F9 42
1. Re:Unexpected mishap by Deflatamouse · 2011-02-02 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  These cougar's ports wear out too easily
Intel is getting ahead of this one by rickb928 · 2011-02-02 09:09 · Score: 1

You will read of the details of this elsewhere, but I 'know a guy' at Intel, and this was slam-dunk gotta-fix-this for them, despite the cost. It was evident from the beginning that this had the makings of a legendary fail for them, and they bit off the $1B and just fixed it.
I'm hoping to get some tidbits on the actual cause, but for now it's pretty tight over there.
Not often that Intel makes these mistakes, and this is one they seem to be handling with integrity. Not like Nvidia.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
1. Re:Intel is getting ahead of this one by icebike · 2011-02-02 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Quote from AnandTech Story
  
  Intel maintains that Sandy Bridge CPUs are not affected, and current users are highly unlikely to encounter the issue even under heavy loads. So far Intel has only been able to document the issue after running extended testing at high temperatures (in a thermal chamber) and voltages.
  So, no, it wasn't evident from the beginning. They had to devise torture tests to even see it.
  See Anandtech (above) for the desired tidbits you were hoping for.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Re:Intel is getting ahead of this one by rickb928 · 2011-02-02 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Intel got returns back from their customers (Dell, for one), and as soon as they analyzed the chipsets, they found the materials problem. The 'torture tests' were in response to the defective parts and the failure mode. That 'only' gets them to choosing the next step, is it hardware or firmware? Assuming,of course, that it is a defect, and not something else. My friend in driver development spends a fair amount of his time proving that the error is not his code. Less than a while ago, since he moved from Windows to Linux driver development. He's a lot less stressed for some reason.
  From the beginning was intended to refer to 'from the beginning of Intel's analysis'. I don't know what beginning you were referring to, but at least Intel had to have a failed part to do any analysis at all. Unless you expect them to be clairvoiant. My friend assures me he is not, he's just a scientist.
  I saw the Anandtech article, and others.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
3. Re:Intel is getting ahead of this one by icebike · 2011-02-02 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  "From the beginning" were your words, not mine. The fact that they had to bake it in an oven with higher than nominal voltages to induce it seems to suggest it was hard to reproduce in their testings.
  And yes, since Intel made the chipset as well as the CPU, I kind of DID expect them to be clairvoyant about this since the problem was known. This particular part was slipped in AFTER the first rounds of tests, it wasn't in the prototypes according to the article.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
4. Re:Intel is getting ahead of this one by rickb928 · 2011-02-02 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Intel so far has publically stated that this problem wasn't detected in their testing. I kinda believe that, and the root cause makes sense of that. The chip wasn't slipped in after the LAST round of tests, so the assumptions that Intel didn't test this design adequately will probably prove false. I haven't heard any credible report that Intel had any suspicion that this problem existed, or could, before shipment. Changed seppings may not have spotted it, for as you pint out, this needed extreme testing regimes to be revealed. Prototypes can't be relied upon as production examples for obvious reasons.
  This would not be the first time Intel has had to retract a part because of materials problems. Just the first time in 2011.
  And one item caught my attention. Intel seems to think that this would affect at least 25% of these parts over a three-year period, and lead to substantially shorter useful life for nearly all of them. In fact, I think they predicted that the vast majority of parts would show no failures for 1-2 years.
  And another item. Anandtech reported that an Intel spokesman said that the fix was to remask and essentially diable the offending transistor. That doesn't square with what I know. But it is common in these cases for one team to blame another, so it coudl be a design team is being lamed by manufacturing for driving a device to failure, where design might be pointing out that the device wasn't manufactured to spec, and is failing because of that. Often, both teams get a trip to the woodshed, since resolving these problems has to be a team approach, and having teams covering their butts first can lead to delays and costs.
  There are teams within Intel that can do their investigation without interference from the CYA gangs. Fortunately for us.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
5. Re:Intel is getting ahead of this one by dbc · 2011-02-02 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I haven't worked at Intel in nearly 10 years, but I did work there for 11 years, and can clearly envision how this went down, since similar things happened on my watch. Key customers always get early units while Intel is still completing their own validation. The feedback from people using the parts in different designs, with different software, with different physical environments is very important since the test space is effectively infinite. Intel validates in many, many ways, but still can't practically have every possible motherboard design in the test flow, despite spending huge amounts of money on it with multiple, large organizations working the problem from different angles. And some customers are more timely than others at getting info back. Sometimes the data is mysterious to them and they don't think of reporting anomalies because they can't pin them down. (I worked on one like that... occasional boot failures at *one* customer on *one* software package that could not be correlated to anything but the phase of the moon for weeks. When they finally, at a late date, were able to get it to fail half-way consistently on a selected handful of parts they finally reported it and we had it nailed in 4 non-stop days of lab work (non-stop as in managers saying: "Shall I bring back pizza or Chinese?") And after we did get it nailed it was an oh-shit.)
  So, while all of the above kind of basic functionality testing is going on, accelerated life testing is going on in parallel. But by its very nature, there is only so much acceleration you can get. Those reports always come in late in the validation cycle. So yes, this is exactly the kind of problem that only shows up late. And everybody, and I mean everybody that makes semi-conductor products is vulnerable to this with every product they ship. It's what keeps test engineers up at night.
How do you tell the difference... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:09 · Score: 0

...between a normal Gigabyte board and a defective one? Thought they were all defective.
1. Re:How do you tell the difference... by moeluv · 2011-02-02 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Gigabyte made the list of MB manufacturers I pass over, them and ASRock will never find their way into another build I do. I gave up on Gigabyte after trying 2 boards in succession and having the same boot issues with both.
2. Re:How do you tell the difference... by Killjoy_NL · 2011-02-03 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  I have the opposite experience with Gigabyte, to me they have been rocksolid while MSI boards kept failing on me.
  Asrocks are filthy pieces of cheap junk.
  
  --
  This is the sig that says NI (again)
3. Re:How do you tell the difference... by Hatta · 2011-02-03 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed! I bought a Gigabyte board based on what I thought was a great reputation. Turns out this board loops on rebooting with USB stuff plugged in. The only way to get it to boot is to unplug all the USB stuff (or disable in in BIOS), or shut the power off at the PSU for 10 seconds. Neither of this can be done remotely unfortunately, so if I ever need to reboot the thing remotely I'm shit out of luck.
  So, who actually makes decent motherboards? My last one was a DFI which was absolutely fantastic hardware. Did not like the company though as shortly after buying the board they introduced a new line and dropped all mention of my board from their website.
  Besides this issue, which is Intel's fault, how is Asus?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Intel is eating the cost by Sycraft-fu · 2011-02-02 09:17 · Score: 1, Informative

The mobo manufacturers don't really care. Intel has done this recall and is eating all the costs related to this problem. So if someone sends back a mobo, the company just sends the bill to Intel and gets their money.
For people that wish to keep their boards and just get a SATA controller (or for who use 1 or 2 ports since the 6gbps ports aren't affected) they can simply do so.
Why the recall...? by Wierdy1024 · 2011-02-02 09:36 · Score: 1

It appears the problem only occurs with some chips, after some years, and where the issue occurs, it will only affect some of the SATA ports.
To me, it sounds like the best course of action from Intels point of view would to be to replace any failed chip when the user complains. The majority of users will never come across the issue, since most users won't have 3 or more SATA devices, and of those users that do, many will probably never get the problem, or if they do it'll be after the warranted period.
If I were Intel, I definitely wouldn't be recalling any chips that were already soldered onto a board without a direct user complaint. It might be fair enough to recall chips that aren't yet on a PCB, since then the cost is much lower, although even then I would just recall them, and then sell them again as slightly cheaper 2 port versions.
The refund procedure could be entirely Intel handled where all returned boards get dumped directly into "recycling", and the user sent a check for $100 (or more if they include a receipt for the board).
Since this ISN'T what Intel is doing, it makes me suspect there is something else more serious wrong with them...
1. Re:Why the recall...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Remember the Pentium FP bug? Intel does, and they don't need a repeat of that on their record. It was impossible to keep that bug a secret. It is far more difficult to keep this type of problem today. Imagine a "wikileaks" type site getting ahold of internal documents about this chipset problem if Intel hadn't said anything...
2. Re:Why the recall...? by klashn · 2011-02-02 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  This was the policy for the FDIV bug. People found out that Intel would only replace it if they were using the CPU that uses the floating point unit extensively. Those users that didn't use it extensively still claimed that they would use it, and thats why there was a big fiasco. This time around... Fix it, get it over with...
3. Re:Why the recall...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  "...this type of problem SECRET today."
4. Re:Why the recall...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  So, because it's not what you'd do, there must be some bigger conspiracy ?
  I take it you've never run a business?
  If you have, please tell me who it is so I can make sure I'll never do business with you.
  From your attitude, it's probably Dell ;)
  Since Slashdot loves car analogies, what you're recommending is the same as Ford knowing that their steering racks sometimes lock up, but only replacing them out once the customer has crashed.
  Do you think that's acceptable?
  What Intel are doing is a thing called 'Being responsible'. Not just to their customers, but to their shareholders.
  Sure, it's a big hit they'll take now, but it'll harm their reputation and business a damn sight less in the long run.
5. Re:Why the recall...? by cbope · 2011-02-02 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Because these are SATA ports, that carry DATA, which could become corrupted on the way to or from the hard drive. There is a risk of data corruption that could go on undetected before the part actually fails and becomes unusable. How would you like to lose a couple years worth of valuable work documents thanks to a simple component failure that could have been prevented by the manufacturer taking appropriate steps? Remember, these chips are going into more than just game PC's... many of them are used in critical business applications where data corruption can be a significant issue, not just in lost work but lost time and revenue if the component fails. And before someone mentions backup... backup is useless if data corruption occurs undetected over a period of time. Your backups will also be corrupted, because you are backing up corrupted data in the first place.
  Intel is taking the wise approach here and recalling all the chipsets. Props to them for handling this the right way.
6. Re:Why the recall...? by petermgreen · 2011-02-03 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  The amusing thing is from what I can gather most of those chips were never returned and the whole thing turned out to be largely a storm in a teacup.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
7. Re:Why the recall...? by afidel · 2011-02-03 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well since it was patched around in most OS's there was no real need to replace the chips unless you would be routinely doing the affected operations and thus bothered by the slowdown from the patch. It's also why all future CPU's had micro-op patching builtin so that errata could largely be fixed without a recall.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
amd is much better at pci-e by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-02-02 09:38 · Score: 2

Intels chips have limited pci-e lanes and you need to go to the high end i7 cpus just to get more then 20+DMI bus speed of 4 pcie lanes. For Sandy Bridge that may be a $400 cpu! + a high cost MB.
AMD lets you USE ANY CPU in a AM3 board with chip set choice with better pci-e lane setups. 890FX has 38 + 4 SB link. 890GX and other 800's 22 + 4 SB link.
790fx has 38 + 4 SB link lanes. 790X and 790GX has 22 + 4 SB link. 785G 20 + 4 SB link. 785E 22 + 4 SB link and most of the other 700 ones have the same.
1. Re:amd is much better at pci-e by h4rr4r · 2011-02-02 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  You will need to make some sort of citations for such an outrageous claim. As someone who tends to go back and forth between the two I have never seen said issues happen more to one than the other. With the exception of intel p4 boards, which burned up northbridges like crazy, but those boards also had bad caps and I imagine that was the real cause.
2. Re:amd is much better at pci-e by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  As someone who tends to go back and forth between the two I have never seen said issues happen more to one than the other.
  Yeah, and you're a a whole fucking statistical universe, you are.
This is a good thing. by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · 2011-02-02 09:40 · Score: 2

If more companies replaced their defective products at their own expense, this would be a better world. And people would be more focused on making things work before they ship the product.
1. Re:This is a good thing. by Shados · 2011-02-02 09:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is in the current world, a lot of companies go under if they do that.
  So you have:
  A) the companies that screw you over
  B)The companies that don't...oh wait, those went under.
  Ok, so you have A) the companies that screw you over. Thats it.
2. Re:This is a good thing. by sjames · 2011-02-02 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  They only go under because of the bad companies polluting the market. If we had consumer laws with actual teeth, the honest companies could win.
3. Re:This is a good thing. by Celarent+Darii · 2011-02-02 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  Don't know about you, but I would prefer to do business with company B. They would at least get my money.
  
  YMMV of course.
4. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 22:44 · Score: 0
  
  Is your consumer protection laws really that weak? In all of the EU if a product is defective on purchase, and the flaw is discovered within 3 years, the retailer has get it repaired or replaced.
5. Re:This is a good thing. by Shados · 2011-02-03 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, I would too. Unfortunately we don't make up the majority of human population :)
6. Re:This is a good thing. by petermgreen · 2011-02-03 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is most people don't have the time to thouroughly research everything they buy, so in a market a buyer is unfamiliar with price wins because it's the easiest thing to compare.
  Further it is very easy for a company that has hit financial problems or is just under stock market pressure to get better figures to decide to trade their reputation for short term profits. It's a much harder descision for a company to trade away their short term profits in the hope a gain in reputation down the road.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
7. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is in the current world, a lot of companies go under if they do that.
  So you have:
  A) the companies that screw you over
  B)The companies that don't...oh wait, those went under.
  Ok, so you have A) the companies that screw you over. Thats it.
  /
  Haha that's awesome
Take the news with a grain of sand by JoeThoughtful · 2011-02-02 09:40 · Score: 1

Any engineer knows that there is going to be trouble when you make a bridge out of sand. It seems like another case of that mystical name/fate thing - where a name carries its own karma.
1. Re:Take the news with a grain of sand by treeves · 2011-02-02 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting point, but I suspect it refers to a bridge on the Sandy River, a river near Portland, OR, which is (fairly) near Intel's R&D fabs.
  They have a habit of naming stuff after rivers (and other places, often small towns), e.g. Nehalem, Tualatin, Clackamas, Willamette.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
2. Re:Take the news with a grain of sand by Stormwatch · 2011-02-02 13:38 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps, but it was designed by Intel's developement center in Haifa, Israel, codenamed "gesher" - hebrew for "bridge". They changed it because there was a political party with that same name there.
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
Now what about dell, hp, and others with bad chips by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-02-02 09:40 · Score: 1

Now what about dell, hp, and others with bad chipsets? will they do a swap? make you pay to ship the system in? make you pay for a tech to swap a board? Let you swap the board on your own? Not even offer a free swap?
all? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:46 · Score: 0

Is it actually "all" sandy bridge motherboards? Intel is only recalling certain boards for sandy bridge, at least. Some sandy bridge boards are unaffected.
I wonder if that's the whole story by ron_ivi · 2011-02-02 09:47 · Score: 1

As others point out, these motherboards don't need to be scraped, but could rather be resold as cheaper models with only the fast (6Gbps) SATA ports and none of the slow (3Gbps) ports by simply putting duct tape over the connectors connecting to the flaky circuits. I wonder if Intel's worried that similar problems may be scattered elsewhere across the chips, and therefor is budgeting for the cost of a full recall.
1. Re:I wonder if that's the whole story by cbope · 2011-02-02 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  You are not serious about covering the 3Gbps ports over with duct tape and selling them as cheaper models, are you? Seriously?
  Also, why would Intel be worried about other parts of the chip? They specifically identified the failure down to the actual component, a transistor, that is part of the 3Gbps circuit and does not exist in the 6Gbps circuit. The transistor fails over time because too high a voltage is driving it. It's a simple mistake caused by circuit re-use from an older design that nobody caught. Probably because it was rushed to market to meet an artificial sales-driven deadline. You can be sure this would have been caught if engineering was determining when a new product is "ready", not sales. I've seen this kind of failure time and again when sales and marketing force a product onto the market before it's fully baked and ready.
2. Re:I wonder if that's the whole story by EvilJoker · 2011-02-03 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Metaphorical duct tape would be very practical- simply remove the connectors, and change the markings on the board to match. I bet that if you look at your motherboard right now, there are solder points for connectors that aren't there, but are available on a similar board (e.g. Firewire- when the chip is included, the ports are attached)
  This reduces the number of completely separate product lines, making them more like optional equipment. They can be resold as a version without the features in question.
I once dated a stripper named Sandy Bridge. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 09:52 · Score: 0

The way the arched her back was a sight to be seen. Many times I traversed her causeway to get to the other side of that gushing river.
What? by immortalpob · 2011-02-02 09:52 · Score: 1

The Gigabye press release is here http://www.gigabyte.us/press-center/news-page.aspx?nid=984 and it says nothing like what this article says, there is no mention at all of returns. Q: What action should I take if I have already purchased a GIGABYTE 6 series motherboard? A: Firstly, please determine your computer setup. No action will be needed if you only use the SATA 3 ports. If you are using the SATA2 ports, then there are possibilities that the device’s performance will decrease after a period of usage. To ensure the highest standard of customer support & services, GIGABYTE recommends that all customers who purchased GIGABYTE 6 series motherboards contact their local dealer (retail store where you purchased the motherboard) at the end of April for a motherboard exchange. GIGABYTE will provide an equivalent new motherboard replacement.
1. Re:What? by multipartmixed · 2011-02-02 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Actually... this sounds pretty much like what I'd expect.
  What do you think doesn't jive?
  
  --
  
  Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
2. Re:What? by immortalpob · 2011-02-02 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  TFA says "Gigabyte says owners of affected boards are entitled to a full refund or replacement—and it recommends that users seek refunds" but I cant find anything in the press release that even hints at that. I find it VERY unusual that a company would encourage returns, not replacements. The press release is exactly what I would expect, wait till the new stuff is ready and trade it in.
Re:Now what about dell, hp, and others with bad ch by billcopc · 2011-02-02 09:56 · Score: 1

I'm assuming Dell and HP will handle it through their usual warranty process, i.e. when customers call to complain their PC has died. Alternately, they might still be working on an official announcement of their own. A recall isn't something you launch on a whim.

--
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Thank you. by unity100 · 2011-02-02 10:05 · Score: 1

i'd rather not buy anything intel again. there has also been a time when they shipped defective batches in some q28345857something line of cpus too, for one of which one of my enthusiast friends paid approx $300 for a single cpu.

--
Read radical news here
What About Intel's Own Motherboards? by BaldingByMicrosoft · 2011-02-02 10:05 · Score: 1, Informative

Here's my experience yesterday with Intel on their support chat. Not happy.

---

info: Please wait for a site operator to respond.
info: You are now chatting with 'Diego'
Diego: Hello. Thank you for using the Intel Customer Support chat service. We are glad to be of service. How can I help you today?
_____@yahoo.com: Hi. I've read about your recent chipset issue. I just purchased and received a DP67BA motherboard. Is there a process to have it replaced with a corrected chipset?
Diego: In this situation, each place of purchase will be in charge of either replacing the motherboard.
Diego: Since the issue is very recent, there are no replacement units with the fix. Bear in mind this issue impacts all Intel® 6 Series Express Chipsets and Intel® Xeon® C200 Series chipsets on systems using SATA ports 2-5, if using ports 0-1, customers are not affected. Using ports 2-5 may impact functional issue rates over time, this is not impacted immediately.
_____@yahoo.com: So, I need to contact the sales vendor regarding this issue, even though it's an Intel motherboard?
Diego: The issue is being under investigation by Intel and we are working as fast as possible concerning this
Diego: Please be aware that 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. Systems with only SATA ports 0 and 1 enabled are not susceptible to these functional issues.
Diego: It is not a problem that will be present in a short time
_____@yahoo.com: Yes. I understand. This is a part I bought for a personal computer. I don't have a lot of money. I need the part to last properly for a long time.
_____@yahoo.com: Are you telling me that I have to contact the sales vendor regarding this? I bought an Intel brand motherboard because I thought I would receive good support.
Diego: You may check with the place of purchase in case you would like to replace the motherboard in the future when a hardware fix is available on a new revision. We are working together with our chain or Authorized Distributors and resellers to cover this problem
_____@yahoo.com: Okay then. I will forward this conversation to my sales vendor and see what they say about it. Thanks.
Diego: You are welcome
Diego: Is there something else I would be able to assist you with?
_____@yahoo.com: No. Goodbye.
1. Re:What About Intel's Own Motherboards? by base3 · 2011-02-02 10:43 · Score: 2
  
  AMD it is for the next build. Thanks for the info.
  
  --
  One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
2. Re:What About Intel's Own Motherboards? by FrankSchwab · 2011-02-02 11:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Frankly, I think that sounds like an excellent response from Intel. Did you expect them to send a car right over with a replacement Mobo?
  They just announced the problem. They don't have 8 million replacement chips, or 8 million replacement motherboards in house. If they waited until they did have that many, somebody would bitch about them delaying the announcement.
  The rep answered your questions truthfully, told you that the exchanges would be handled through the retailer, and suggested that your board will probably work just fine until a replacement is available. Again, what more did you expect?
  Angry? Sure you can be angry. Someone sold you something that's defective, and that's causing you problems. They can't immediately make it right, and that's going to cause you more problems. Suck it up - it happens everywhere, all the time, and is part of life.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
3. Re:What About Intel's Own Motherboards? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  What's wrong with going through the vendors? They actually have the infrastructure to do RMAs for individual customers while Intel does not. From what other comments are saying, it seems Intel will be crediting the vendors, so they are still paying for the process. It looks like in your conversation, Diego gave you the answer after your first question, then you just got angry. How does this dialog show any wrongdoing on Intel's part?
4. Re:What About Intel's Own Motherboards? by batkiwi · 2011-02-02 11:39 · Score: 2
  
  So is your vendor refusing to support you? If not, what's your problem? If your car has a recall, do you take it to the dealer (who is likely his own business), or call up corporate HQ and demand they ship you the new part?
  They are using vendors as the channel of distribution. There's nothing wrong with that, and genrally ensures everyone gets served more quickly.
5. Re:What About Intel's Own Motherboards? by BaldingByMicrosoft · 2011-02-02 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  No I didn't expect them to send a car right over with a replacement.
  And I never said I was angry. Disappointed would be more accurate.
  Actually, your trolling is causing me a stronger emotional reaction. I'm sure I'll get over it -- you're not worth it.
  
  What I expected is that Intel would have a process and statement for their own motherboards. Less CYA, which was all the chat rep was giving until I pushed the issue. More of "we'll take care of this for you, here's how..." -- that's what I expect from a vendor.
  
  Suck it up? No. They should be accountable for customer service.
6. Re:What About Intel's Own Motherboards? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  _____@yahoo.com: Are you telling me that I have to contact the sales vendor regarding this? I stole an Intel brand motherboard because I thought I would receive good support.
  Diego: You may check with the robbery victim for the point of purchase and receipt in case you would like to replace the motherboard in the future when a hardware fix is available on a new revision. We are working together with our chain or Authorized Distributors and resellers to cover this problem
  _____@yahoo.com: Okay then. I will forward this conversation to the neighbor I robbed and see what he says about it! Thanks.
  Diego: You are welcome
  Diego: Is there something else I would be able to assist you with?
  _____@yahoo.com: No. Goodbye.
7. Re:What About Intel's Own Motherboards? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  Go Diego Go!
  What part are you not happy about? Your chat client seemed to work. Diego gave you good information and good advice. ???
8. Re:What About Intel's Own Motherboards? by willy_me · 2011-02-02 16:24 · Score: 2
  
  Intel never sold you the motherboard so they can not offer a refund. I do not see why this is surprising. If I purchased an Apple computer from a local retailer I would not be able to return it directly to Apple for a refund. This situation is no different. Note that I could send it back to Apple for repairs/replacement - just not for a refund.
  Now if Intel had a fix available they would probably offer replacement motherboards - but no such fix is available. Their customer support told you of your options - return for a refund from the retailer or wait for a replacement. If you wait for a replacement, only use SATA 0,1 in order to avoid the problem. Considering that there is currently no fix, the customer service is perfectly acceptable.
9. Re:What About Intel's Own Motherboards? by FrankSchwab · 2011-02-03 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm hurt by your lack of validation of my importance.
  You expected Intel would have a process and statement for their own motherboards? What do you think you got?
  statement - this issue impacts all Intel® 6 Series Express Chipsets and Intel® Xeon® C200 Series chipsets on systems using SATA ports 2-5
  statement - Since the issue is very recent, there are no replacement units with the fix.
  process - In this situation, each place of purchase will be in charge of either replacing the motherboard.
  More of "we'll take care of this for you, here's how..." - You may check with the place of purchase in case you would like to replace the motherboard in the future when a hardware fix is available on a new revision. We are working together with our chain or Authorized Distributors and resellers to cover this problem
  I still don't understand what you're looking for. Almost any other manufacturer would simply ignore the problem; your device would die after 3 or 4 years, and you'd chalk it up to random chance.
  I'll give you a cookie, if it helps.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
Newegg will refund, too by klui · 2011-02-02 10:10 · Score: 1

Newegg will also refund. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJcE2alQPvY
1. Re:Newegg will refund, too by Dr.+Spork · 2011-02-02 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Very informative video. If I understood it right, they are happy to let you keep your defective motherboard - which still has two SATA-3 ports that work perfectly well - and use it until April, at which point they will swap it out with a new one. If this is the deal, then that's actually very customer-friendly. From the blurb, I had the impression that if you want to participate in this rebate, you have to send back your mobo now, and your fancy Sandy Bridge CPU will just sit unused on your desk for almost three months, which in computer time is a good fraction of forever.
2. Re:Newegg will refund, too by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 21:09 · Score: 0
  
  Man newegg is so awesome.
Verifying that you have a repaired board by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 10:12 · Score: 1

How does Intel plan on representing chipsets that have been repaired/fixed? End-users are going to need a simple utility to verify this, as will us UNIX system administrators. :-)
I imagine that they could simply increment the PCI device ID revision attribute of the controller (from rev 0x00 to rev 0x01) or something similar, but they haven't disclosed how they're going to differentiate between "old/broken" and "new/working" chips.
The only thing I can find is a "stepping number" that's associated with the chipset (and that's based on http://www.gigabyte.us/press-center/news-page.aspx?nid=984), but there isn't a way to obtain that information directly from the PCI bus; you have to already be speaking directly to the controller via PCI commands to get that. So, I sure hope Intel plans on disclosing how to verify that your board has a repaired chip.
Cougar Point, not Sandy Bridge by pablodiazgutierrez · 2011-02-02 10:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Cougar Point is a chipset (the set of circuits that normally come in a motherboard, separate from the CPU). Sandy Bridge is a family of processors. The announced problem is with the former, not the latter. A lot of tech news outlets are spreading the misinformation and causing quite a mess.

--

To do list for Windows
1. Re:Cougar Point, not Sandy Bridge by PitaBred · 2011-02-02 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Cougar Point only works with Sandy Bridge chips, and Sandy Bridge is a much more publicized name, so that's what the news outlets are running with. It may not be totally correct, but it's not totally incorrect either. Many people with Sandy Bridge CPUs don't realize they also have a Cougar Point chipset.
  
  --
  My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
2. Re:Cougar Point, not Sandy Bridge by makomk · 2011-02-02 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  All currently available motherboards for Sandy Bridge processors use the Cougar Point chip and are potentially affected - even the ones in notebooks. The headline is correct.
3. Re:Cougar Point, not Sandy Bridge by Kjella · 2011-02-03 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Does it matter anymore as only Intel makes chips to go with the newest Intel processors and there's a new generation of chips for each new CPU generation. "Sandy Bridge boards" == "Cougar Point" for all intents and purposes.
  In fact, motherboards have become increasingly generic. There's your choice of chipset and how many USB/SATA ports come extra, but for the most part you could really just have Intel make all of them except for the anti-trust hell that'd make.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
4. Re:Cougar Point, not Sandy Bridge by petermgreen · 2011-02-03 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Actually if you plan to use any cards you need to chose your motherboard carefully. The relatively small number of PCIe lanes combined with the large number of things that people want (or at least the motherboard vendors thing people want) but that aren't in the chipset means you need to really pay attention to the PCIe configuration and see if it matches you needs. Looking at what slots are physically there is NOT sufficiant due to the use of lane switches (motherboard vendors use the misleading term "share bandwidth" for this) . Worse very few manufacturers supply block diagrams for desktop boards (gigabyte is the only one i'm aware of that does so).
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
excellent! by khraz · 2011-02-02 10:22 · Score: 1

I'm hoping for a price drop on Sandy Bridge processors during this time, since there'll be no boards to put them in...
Asus didn't handle the capacitor plague so well by bzipitidoo · 2011-02-02 10:25 · Score: 2

Nobody did, that I know of.
An Asus motherboard I bought many years ago worked fine for about 4 years, then over a period of 2 weeks started spontaneously rebooting or locking up at ever shorter intervals until the computer was unusable. (As I recall, it was a P4S333. I put a 1.7 MHz Pentium 4 in it.) I saw some capacitors had leaked on the motherboard.
Thought I'd see what Asus had to say about it, perhaps offer a replacement or upgrade at a prorated discount, or something. They told me to get lost. Motherboard was much too old to be in warranty. Businesses feel that they are excused the minute the magic warranty period expires, despite cases like this that are clearly the result of a flawed product. I didn't really expect any better, and to be fair the board was too obsolete to be worth messing with, but still, it was annoying.
Friend of mine who is good with a soldering pencil replaced the capacitors for me, and the board worked fine again. Still works fine today. Tried replacing capacitors on other afflicted boards. Sometimes that worked, and sometimes not.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
1. Re:Asus didn't handle the capacitor plague so well by WhoBeDaPlaya · 2011-02-02 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  ABIT was the only manufacturer who finally manned up to the capacitor problem.
I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by Ironhandx · 2011-02-02 10:44 · Score: 2

I really have mostly supported AMD over the years. A lot times it comes down to the fact that they generally have the best price/performance in my/others budget range(most computers I build are in the $1000-1500 range) when I'm building computers and I also have a certain comfort level with them in that I've scrapped a lot fewer AMD cpus than Intel ones.
However, I have to say. I'm really impressed with how Intel is handling this. There must be a nice bit of extra support for board vendors as well, especially with the huge loss numbers they're predicting and how good the board manufacturers are being with this situation.
This could have been a really bad PR event. Instead I think I might be buying Intel when its time to upgrade again in 6-12 months.
1. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by h4rr4r · 2011-02-02 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  So that you too can experience broken parts?
  To me this is them doing the least they could, the right thing would be a refund since you can't use any boards right now and a new board when they are available. This makes the CPU you bought from them worthless, so just offering a replacement in 2 months is nuts.
2. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by oracleguy01 · 2011-02-02 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you read the article, it is an issue that isn't apparent right away (Intel had to use a extraordinary testing conditions to cause it to happen) and when it does, the 2 SATA3 ports are unaffected. From the Anandtech article:
  
  So far Intel has only been able to document the issue after running extended testing at high temperatures (in a thermal chamber) and voltages. My recommendation is to try to only use ports 0 & 1 (the 6Gbps ports) on your 6-series motherboard until you get a replacement in place.
  So it isn't like your computer is unusable, most people will never experience the issue between now and April when replacement boards are available. So the CPU you bought is hardly worthless.
  Seems to me that they are handling it well enough, clearly they are working with their vendors to make the process easy. NewEgg will either give you a refund now or a replacement board in April, no questions asked.
3. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by h4rr4r · 2011-02-02 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Please do explain how I fit my two boot drives(RAID0) and my RAID5 array on just two sata ports
4. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by FrankSchwab · 2011-02-02 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  You don't. You're screwed.
  You can buy a SATA card for $20, but next you'll tell me that all your card slots are in use for fax modems or something.
  You can use your motherboard until replacements are available. If it fails, then you can look at your options again.
  Or, you can send your board back to your retailer, get your money back, and buy a new board, hopefully one with the updated chip.
  In the grand scheme of things, your problem is trivial.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
5. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by PNutts · 2011-02-02 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, my CPU is not worthless and I'm using the MB right now. My SATA ports are fully populated. So far I've ripped 342 DVDs into about 700GB of MP4s and then copied them to a media server. I've moved almost 2 TB of ISOs to a new HD. If the performance starts to suffer I'll move the system and a data drive to Port 0/1 and move the optical drives to 2-5 and not worry about the rest. NewEgg did offer me a refund but I'm going to wait for a replacement. I can't think of any part that I didn't get a lemon at some point or another over the years... Power supply, DVD writer, RAM, MB, CPU, etc. I bought a Logitech remote control and when I got home and it didn't work I went back to Best Buy not Logitech, so I don't follow your logic.
6. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by patowic · 2011-02-02 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  My i7-2600 on a Gigabyte P67 mobo is running just fine right now. I'm only using the SATA3 ports, so this problem will never affect me. Regardless of this, Gigabyte has already publicly declared that I will be able to exchange my mobo for a new one once they've gone and _made_ those new ones.
  this i7-2600 is the _fastest_ cpu I've ever run into. It's an absolute screamer -- running TEN kvm VMs under ubuntu 10.04.01, at a posted load average of 1.02. to the kernel, the hyperthreading makes it look like an 8-way box, and my world community grid numbers (overnight, when the kvm machines are shut down) are smokin'.
  I'd rather this hadn't happened, but Intel/Gigabyte are handling this like pros. I'll be using this server until such a time as the new mobos are available.
7. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  You're thinking of buying Intel because you're impressed with how they handle bugs in their chipsets that don't plague AMD? It sounds like you want to get a defective product just so Intel can "take care" of you.
8. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  Intel had a chip that couldn't do division correctly and they came through that just fine PR wise.
9. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 20:28 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't buy Intel the chip has DRM built into it
10. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by Tycho · 2011-02-02 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  We all point at you and laugh for using something as CPU intensive as RAID5 on a consumer grade SATA controller. What, you didn't think the XOR operations and striping came for free, did you? No, your CPU gets to XOR and align the data on the drive whenever a write to the array is made. This obviously kills write performance and is also fairly CPU intensive. It also defeats the purpose of DMA for writes. Reads are not impaired in a RAID5 array, however.
  I suppose that SATA multiplexers exist which add additional ports, but since they divide up the bandwidth equally between each drive whether they need it or not, this isn't much of a solution.
  
  --
  Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
11. Re:I've mostly bought AMD over the years but... by afidel · 2011-02-03 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, doing XOR on a SB processor probably uses .015% of one core at whatever MB/s the drives are capable of. EMC puts hundreds of high performance drives and even SSD's behind a single quad core CPU in the new VNX line and that processor is doing a lot more than just XOR.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
glad i don't build or buy intel stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 10:45 · Score: 0

I'd have a lot of un happy gaming customers.
J. Dzhugashvili by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 11:13 · Score: 0

Interesting, does J. Dzhugashvili stand for Joseph Dzhugashvili?
That is what is being recommended by Sycraft-fu · 2011-02-02 11:21 · Score: 2

Newegg has a video out talking about it and they run down how you can still use the board, if you only have two devices just use the first couple ports and so on. Basically you can hold on to your board till the new ones come, then get a replacement.
The refund policy seems to just be to keep people happy. Some people look for any excuse to flip their lid and will do it over something like this and demand a refund. Intel headed all that off and told all suppliers to offer refunds, no questions asked, and Intel would reimburse them.
Personally if I were in the situation of owning a board, I'd just buy a SATA controller, since I have 4 harddrives, and then get a replacement board when they come out. The $30ish dollars would be worth it to just keep the system.
However Intel is offering people choices in what they want. Want a refund right now? No problem.
I think they learned their less on from the FDIV bug. They want to make sure nobody can accuse them of not dealing with the problem. Keep your board, get a replacement later, send it in get a refund now, they'll do whichever remedy makes you happy.
Oh stop looking for reason to be angry by Sycraft-fu · 2011-02-02 11:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

I swear, some people are just looking for reasons to be pissed off.
So, Intel has offered you the ability to either get a refund now, or a replacement board later. What's more, to get your refund you don't have to deal with them, you deal with the people that sold you the board, Intel will reimburse them. Like if it is Newegg just contact them and they'll issue you a full refund RMA, no questions asked, for any product that contained a 67 chipset, mobo, laptop, etc.
You cannot be provided with a replacement right now, because there are none to be had, they are being made. However if you'd rather not get a refund and use the system as it is, that's fine you can do that and then get a replacement in a month or two when they are out on the market.
Seems to me as though they've done everything they can to rectify the situation. They are fixing the problem and everyone gets a free replacement when the fixed units are out. If you are unwilling or unable to wait, then you can send back the stuff for a full refund right now.
If this doesn't satisfy you I see only one of two situations:
1) You want a fixed chip right now. That means you are an idiot, expecting you can have something before it is physically possible.
2) You want Intel to issue you a refund directly, rather than the retailer because you feel that is a better "punishment" or something. In that case you are just being unreasonable. You can get your refund, just talk to the place that sold it. Hell you'll get it faster that way.
Seriously, I fail to see the big deal. There is a fuckup, they are doing what they can to fix it. Nothing else can be done that I can see.
Yay for refunds! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 12:02 · Score: 0

I'm glad gigabyte is suggesting refunds. hopefully they make a new revision that will equal the competition's features. (i.e. the P67A-UD4 is rather lackluster compared to the P8P67 Pro).
but I wonder how many smaller stores will want to do refunds? especially if you wait until April, it would be way past the 30-day window. I bought mine at Microcenter, so I'm curious to see how they will handle this.
Hassle-free return? by fl_litig8r · 2011-02-02 13:05 · Score: 1

I guess it would be hassle-free if you don't consider gutting your computer to remove the motherboard so you can box it and return it a hassle. Also, this is hassle-free if you take pleasure from dealing with the driver issues from having to install a different motherboard (or a full OS reinstall if you run Windows). No hassle there. Yeah, totally hassle-free.
Stalin? by Alex+Belits · 2011-02-02 13:27 · Score: 1

J. Dzhugashvili writes
Oh, for fuck sake, stay dead!

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Excess supply soon? by poity · 2011-02-02 13:55 · Score: 1

So the bad ones are going back for refurbishing while new ones are being pumped out?
That means we can expect the mobo market to be flooded with supply soon?
$50 sandy bridge motherboards in May oh please oh please oh please.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Well two problems by Sycraft-fu · 2011-02-02 14:00 · Score: 1

First you are comparing the bulldozer to a 950. That is a 45nm Nehlam chip. Well and good, but that is not the same thing as a 32nm Sandy Bridge chip. They are faster per clock than Nehlam chips, and that is without considering things using their new AVX extensions (how much that matters remains to be seen). Also they scale better speed wise. A 950 is 3.06Ghz, a 2600 (roughly same price) is 3.4Ghz and has a higher turbo speed.
Second you have to consider that throwing more cores at a problem doesn't do a lot of good in the consumer arena. While synthetic benchmarks can take advantage, most consumer apps can't. Making use of dual cores is pretty easy, most things these days including games can. Quad cores is a little harder. Still plenty that doesn't use them, or doesn't use them well (some games do have 4 or more threads, but 90%+ of the work is done by 2 threads so other cores aren't used much).
Given those things, the AMD chip doesn't sound all that impressive. If the 1.5x a 950 number is accurate it is probably not much faster, if at all, than a 2600. That will be made worse for consumers in that most apps will not be able to use a large part of the bulldozer's power and thus be even slower in practice. Basically if it is, say, 10% faster with 8 cores then it is going to be only maybe 55% of the speed for something that can use only 4 cores.
Perhaps things will change and apps will get multi-threaded to the point that they can use a fairly arbitrary high number of cores, but that isn't how it stands.
1. Re:Well two problems by Rockoon · 2011-02-02 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  First you are comparing the bulldozer to a 950.
  
  No, I compared it with a i7-950, a Phenom II 1100T, and a i7-980X. Actually.. I only compared it with an i7-980X.. the rumors compared it to the others. Did you not read my post, or did you intentionally ignore what you read?
  
  Well and good, but that is not the same thing as a 32nm Sandy Bridge chip [snip] a 2600 (roughly same price) is 3.4Ghz and has a higher turbo speed.
  Nobody said it was, but I also mentioned the Sandy's. Did you not read my post, or did you intentionally ignore what you read?
  
  The 2600 is a Sandy in the 9000+ PassMark category... oh.. exactly where the Bulldozer rumors put Bulldozer..Why would I talk about price on similarly performing parts in the same paragraph? hmmmmmm. I wonder... did you even read my post?
  
  Second you have to consider that throwing more cores at a problem doesn't do a lot of good in the consumer arena.
  Using your logic, a consumer is good to go with their dual core Pentium 4. email, facebook, and netflix... Right? Why are you talking about Sandy's again?
  
  Given those things, the AMD chip doesn't sound all that impressive. If the 1.5x a 950 number is accurate it is probably not much faster, if at all, than a 2600. That will be made worse for consumers in that most apps will not be able to use a large part of the bulldozer's power and thus be even slower in practice.
  Each pair of cores shares some resources, so if that 1.5x is for an 8-threaded task, it is even better than 1.5x per thread in 4-threaded scenarios. Nobody, however, knows if that 1.5x is exclusively multi threaded tasks.. you seem to want to argue as if you do know. Do you?
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
Does that matter? by Sycraft-fu · 2011-02-02 14:10 · Score: 1

I think people get a little over focused on the PCIe lanes thing. Remember that more lanes drives up the cost. So you have to ask yourself is it useful? Do you need a tons of PCIe lanes? The answer turns out to be no. HardODCP did a test (http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/23/gtx_480_sli_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x8x8/3) and it turns out that to even see any difference at all you need to crank up to 5760x1200 to see a difference. Even then it is what they call a "benchmarkable" difference meaning it is noticeable on a graph and repeatable, but you don't notice the difference in actual game play.
Now this is using two extremely high end ($600 each when the article came out) cards. You also need a big power supply to support this, and a good case for cooling. So you are talking an extremely expensive setup, just for the cards.
You'd have to move beyond that, to 3 graphics cards, to really start to need more bandwidth and thus more PCIe lanes. Well guess what? If you can afford $1800 on video cards, $200-300 on a motherboard (you need more expensive boards to get all the lanes and slots for 3 cards) $200 on a PSU and so on you'll have to forgive me if I don't feel sorry if you also need a bit more expensive CPU, especially since you'll NEED a high end one to supply data to all those GPUs fast enough to make use of them.
bought it overseas by Espectr0 · 2011-02-02 14:25 · Score: 1

I live in Venezuela. Went to Australia for vacation on december where they started to sell the motherboards and cpu's since october. Bought it, asked intel and gigabyte and they told me to just go to the store where i bought it and ask for a refund.
Sucks to be me since that option isn't viable for me. Even sending the motherboard overseas and waiting for a new motherboard isn't viable since it would cost me in shipping charges even more than what i paid (around 150 dollars)

--
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
1. Re:bought it overseas by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-03 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  Once there is a replacement, I'd be surprised if you can't RMA it directly to Gigabyte. If you have no other choice, though, just pick up an SATA controller card and use that instead of your 3 gb/s connectors.
List of affected models by Hecatonchires · 2011-02-02 17:15 · Score: 1

Is there a list anywhere?

--
Yay me!
1. Re:List of affected models by allanw · 2011-02-02 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  All of them.