With IOMMU missing, that might be what's causing the memory being slow on AMD AM* based sockets? Otherwise I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobaltrock
Printable View
With IOMMU missing, that might be what's causing the memory being slow on AMD AM* based sockets? Otherwise I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobaltrock
Hmm ? No, IOMMU is used for I/O virtualization.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpidragon
That makes it so you can run VM's with much better speed/features.
For the memory bandwidth, that limitation is from the CPU/chipset design, and I think this will be much improved when quad channel memory support is available. Unknown if that will be made available for all chipsets AMD makes.
Well, the guy who suggested I install a SSD drive and another 4GB of RAM in my computer was right, as my computer is now running faster.:up::cool:
CPU now at 3GHz.
Removed DVD maker and Mediaplayer, saved me 8GB of space on my 32GB SSD drive:cool:, and also not using virtual memory either.:up:
One guy, on this forum maybe right about using memory in an unganged state, when using 64-bit OS, as my computer is now running faster than ever.
Intel Says Sandy Bridge Support Chip Has “Design Errors”
VIDEO Intel's $700 Million Design FlawQuote:
Shares of Intel are taking a bit of a drubbing today as the company announced it had discovered a design error in a chip supporting its Sandy Bridge generation of microprocessors. The chip is called Cougar Point, and it’s involved with the data connection to other devices within or outside the computer–hard drives or internal optical drives–using SATA connections. Intel says the performance of these connections could degrade over time. The systems affected have Core i5 and Core i7 quad-core chips.
The company has already stopped making the chip with the problem, but as is always the case with the incredibly complex process of semiconductor manufacturing, doing so is a costly process. Intel said it will reduce its revenue forecast for the first quarter by $300 million as it ends production of the old chip and gets volume of the new one ramped up. Total cost to repair and replace affected materials and computers already sold with the problem chip will be $700 million.
Intel Identifies Chipset Design Error, Implementing Solution
Quote:
The company expects to begin delivering the updated version of the chipset to customers in late February and expects full volume recovery in April. Intel stands behind its products and is committed to product quality. For computer makers and other Intel customers that have bought potentially affected chipsets or systems, Intel will work with its OEM partners to accept the return of the affected chipsets, and plans to support modifications or replacements needed on motherboards or systems. The systems with the affected support chips have only been shipping since January 9th and the company believes that relatively few consumers are impacted by this issue. The only systems sold to an end customer potentially impacted are Second Generation Core i5 and Core i7 quad core based systems. Intel believes that consumers can continue to use their systems with confidence, while working with their computer manufacturer for a permanent solution. For further information consumers should contact Intel at www.intel.com on the support page or contact their OEM manufacturer.
SB bulldozed itself. :p:
Or are you implying that AMD has something to do with that?! :rofl:
amd stock is up alot today, which makes sense with intel being down by a hefty amount.
You know, 890FX boards are affordable (Biostar) and also offer IOMMU :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobaltrock
:rofl::up:Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
I just got that in my partner email. Telling us to stop orders/sales of this chipset. It probably won't hurt Intel in the long run, but isn't good.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReKcOlNu
According to cnet (Intel's Sandy Bridge chipset flaw: The fallout) it only effects SATA ports 2-5.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
* Issue: Affects SATA ports 2 through 5, not ports 0 and 1. Most laptops have two SATA devices, such as a hard disk drive and optical drive that would be using the unaffected ports 0 and 1. That said, Sandy Bridge-based systems with more than a couple of SATA devices could potentially be affected. The data itself is not affected. So, if a consumer had an affected system, data could be accessed by moving the storage device to another system or a working port.
* How issue was discovered: Last week customers started telling Intel that there was an issue. As Intel stressed the part, then Intel's labs started seeing a failure to access ports 2 through 5. The Intel stress test simulated time passing and it showed that over time this issue could come up.
From Intel Alert for Intel® 6 Series Express Chipsets and Intel® Xeon® C200 Chipsets users
Regardless of how minute the error is, an error is an error. You can't get a 100% on a test by doing the math wrong. With that said, while the issue seems small to the consumer, intel has to recall every single one of those, or at least service them when the end user RMA's. Lots of $$$ gone because of that.
:ROTF: AMEN to that! :rofl: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
amd marketing should be jumping on this
bulldozer and llano out early!
700 Million dayummm.. Not that much of a flaw imo..
more of a fail imoQuote:
Originally Posted by Johnny87au
it should have been found in testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Intel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me as a false intel worker
well that is somewhat true but not every company is bulletproof.. Easy fix to it, grab a cheap Raid card .. It isnt the biggest flaw imo..Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
they should use more than one way to test.
BD RELEASED NEXT WEEK, RIGHT JF?? lol
a bit sarcastic humor (its from Facebook):
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5117/hahayn.jpg
:D
I just love smooth SATA. :D
:rofl::rofl::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by flank3r
LoL "Sata works™" :D
lol epic...Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r