MMM
Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 459

Thread: Intel Identifies Chipset Design Error, Implementing Solution

  1. #251
    Xtreme Member godsfist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by alpha0ne View Post
    Well at least this will stop the insane levels of price gouging going on in AU for everything 1155
    The $70 difference between 2600 and 2600K pisses me off.
    INTEL CORE i7-10700K
    ASUS ROG STRIX Z490-E
    CORSAIR DDR4 3200 32GB
    MSI RTX 3070 VENTUS 8GB
    SAMSUNG QA65Q7FN 65 TV
    DARK BASE PRO 900 REV2
    DARK ROCK 4 HEATSINK
    SEASONIC PRIME 750W
    SAMSUNG 970 PRO 1TB
    CRUCIAL X8 SSD 1TB
    ADATA HD770G 1TB
    SENNHEISER HD598
    LOGITECH Z-5500
    LOGITECH K800
    ASUS RT-AC88U
    DEATHADDER

  2. #252
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Russia, Cherepovets
    Posts
    49
    Any reference to where it's said that SATA2 ports of 0 and 1 are not affected?

  3. #253
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toon
    Posts
    1,555
    Quote Originally Posted by MythSquare View Post
    Any reference to where it's said that SATA2 ports of 0 and 1 are not affected?
    Only SCAN are saying this.
    Intel i7 920 C0 @ 3.67GHz
    ASUS 6T Deluxe
    Powercolor 7970 @ 1050/1475
    12GB GSkill Ripjaws
    Antec 850W TruePower Quattro
    50" Full HD PDP
    Red Cosmos 1000

  4. #254
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by MythSquare View Post
    Any reference to where it's said that SATA2 ports of 0 and 1 are not affected?
    Anandtech too
    And its the Sata 3 - 6 Gbps ports 0-1 that are ok and not affected.
    Asus Rampage 2 Extreme
    Intel Xeon W3520 @ 4.2 Ghz
    6GB Corsair Dominator 8-8-8-24 1T
    1x 80GB Intel SSD - 1x 300GB WD Raptor
    2x 2TB Seagate
    Antec 1200
    2x GTX 460 @ (800 x 1600)
    Dell U2410
    Asus Xonar XTX
    Yamaha HS50M

  5. #255
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Russia, Cherepovets
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by sharan_ahuja View Post
    Anandtech too
    And its the Sata 3 - 6 Gbps ports 0-1 that are ok and not affected.
    It means that on Asus P8P67 Deluxe it is safe to use Marvell and Intel SataIII ports to plug in SataII drives right?

  6. #256
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    271
    Port 0 and 1 are 6GB/s so there are not affected.
    i7 4770 | 24GB | Z87 Mpower | 1070FE | 512GB/1TB/2TB | WiNDy FC500 | 2713hm | 2.0 | 650w


  7. #257
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    1,960
    Quote Originally Posted by MythSquare View Post
    It means that on Asus P8P67 Deluxe it is safe to use Marvell and Intel SataIII ports to plug in SataII drives right?
    yes it is, .... same goes for other motherboard who have additional Sata Controller, II or III ... just don't use the SATA II Intel connectors ( Anyway not for main HDD/SSD, cause if it's for storage or backup, you don't really care of lost 5% perfs on it if you don't recall files from there ) ... The Intel SATA III 6gb/s is not affected too ... ( peoples say slot 0-1, can be 2-3, just watch your manual for refer on )
    CPU: - I7 4930K (EK Supremacy )
    GPU: - 2x AMD HD7970 flashed GHZ bios ( EK Acetal Nickel Waterblock H2o)
    Motherboard: Asus x79 Deluxe
    RAM: G-skill Ares C9 2133mhz 16GB
    Main Storage: Samsung 840EVO 500GB / 2x Crucial RealSSD C300 Raid0

  8. #258
    Administrator andressergio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Montevideo - Uruguay
    Posts
    5,442
    so guys

    if 1 and 2 are not affected so and so the marvells can i put SSD on 1 and 3 HDD on raid 0 to the others like i actually have on my X58A or i cant mix them ?
    Intel Core i9-7980XE@ 4.8GHz 18C/18TH (Direct Die Contact)
    ASRock X299 OC Formula
    ADATA XPG SPECTRIX D80 (4x8GB) DDR4-3800C17 B-Die
    1x Intel Optane SSD 905P 480GB
    4x HP EX950 NVMe 2TB on ASRock ULTRA M.2 CARD
    EVGA RTX 2080TI KINGPIN 2190/8000 Stock Cooling AIO 240
    SilverStone ST1500W-TI TITANIUM
    Alphacool Custom Water Cooling

  9. #259
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In the Land down -under-
    Posts
    4,439
    Quote Originally Posted by andressergio View Post
    so guys

    if 1 and 2 are not affected so and so the marvells can i put SSD on 1 and 3 HDD on raid 0 to the others like i actually have on my X58A or i cant mix them ?
    0 and 1 are only to be used which are sata III, sata II no matter what is a no go

    Another thing I find funny is AMD/Intel would snipe any of our Moms on a grocery run if it meant good quarterly results, and you are forever whining about what feser did?

  10. #260
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    953
    I am running ssd in sata III 0-1 ports with no issues on this UD5. No cold boot issues either using f6c bios.

  11. #261
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Budaors, Hungary.
    Posts
    143
    Sorry guys but this is just to funny not to post.


    "We are going to hell, so bring your sunblock..."

  12. #262
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,359
    hahhaa massman strikes again :p
    Question : Why do some overclockers switch into d*ckmode when money is involved

    Remark : They call me Pro Asus Saaya yupp, I agree

  13. #263
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok,Thailand (DamHot)
    Posts
    2,690
    Now i move my sata to port 0-1
    Intel Core i5 6600K + ASRock Z170 OC Formula + Galax HOF 4000 (8GBx2) + Antec 1200W OC Version
    EK SupremeHF + BlackIce GTX360 + Swiftech 655 + XSPC ResTop
    Macbook Pro 15" Late 2011 (i7 2760QM + HD 6770M)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014) , Huawei Nexus 6P
    [history system]80286 80386 80486 Cyrix K5 Pentium133 Pentium II Duron1G Athlon1G E2180 E3300 E5300 E7200 E8200 E8400 E8500 E8600 Q9550 QX6800 X3-720BE i7-920 i3-530 i5-750 Semp140@x2 955BE X4-B55 Q6600 i5-2500K i7-2600K X4-B60 X6-1055T FX-8120 i7-4790K

  14. #264
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenknics View Post
    You missed the point completely guy. Reading comprehension and logic is needed before trying to make an insult. You fail.

    I was referring to people on the board, not Intel.
    Talk about irony. You failed to understand that you were ridiculing a problem that Intel itself regards as big enough to bin the B stepping of Cougar Point. By doing so you were actually giving them the crybaby label and not the people on these boards.

    It's a design flaw.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnandTech
    While Steve wouldn’t go into greater detail he kept mentioning that this bug was completely an oversight. It sounds to me like an engineer did something without thinking and this was the result. This is a bit different from my initial take on the problem. Intel originally characterized the issue as purely statistical, but the source sounds a lot more like a design problem rather than completely random chance.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/t...point-sata-bug

    People want it fixed and it is going to get fixed. That is it. No one needs a solution that exists in your head only. And no one needs to hear that they are "drame queens" for not being happy about it, ffs!

  15. #265
    Xtreme Member godsfist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    194
    Update: Jimmy sent us a chat log with an Intel customer service representative indicating that this recall only affects "some desktop boards based on Intel P67 chipset," that the H67 chipset boards appear to not be affected, but that the company doesn't have a comprehensive list yet. We've certainly seen cases where CSRs don't have all the info in this sort of situation, but still we'd advise waiting a bit before tearing your new mobo out and bringing it back to the store.

    http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/31/i...ments-stopped/
    INTEL CORE i7-10700K
    ASUS ROG STRIX Z490-E
    CORSAIR DDR4 3200 32GB
    MSI RTX 3070 VENTUS 8GB
    SAMSUNG QA65Q7FN 65 TV
    DARK BASE PRO 900 REV2
    DARK ROCK 4 HEATSINK
    SEASONIC PRIME 750W
    SAMSUNG 970 PRO 1TB
    CRUCIAL X8 SSD 1TB
    ADATA HD770G 1TB
    SENNHEISER HD598
    LOGITECH Z-5500
    LOGITECH K800
    ASUS RT-AC88U
    DEATHADDER

  16. #266
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,829
    Some interesting info here.
    The problem in the chipset was traced back to a transistor in the 3Gbps PLL clocking tree. The aforementioned transistor has a very thin gate oxide, which allows you to turn it on with a very low voltage. Unfortunately in this case Intel biased the transistor with too high of a voltage, resulting in higher than expected leakage current. Depending on the physical characteristics of the transistor the leakage current here can increase over time which can ultimately result in this failure on the 3Gbps ports. The fact that the 3Gbps and 6Gbps circuits have their own independent clocking trees is what ensures that this problem is limited to only ports 2 - 5 off the controller.

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

    One fix for this type of a problem would be to scale down the voltage applied across the problematic transistor. In this case there’s a much simpler option. The source of the problem is actually not even a key part of the 6-series chipset design, it’s remnant of an earlier design that’s no longer needed. In our Sandy Bridge review I pointed out the fair amount of design reuse that was done in creating the 6-series chipset. The solution Intel has devised is to simply remove voltage to the transistor. The chip is functionally no different, but by permanently disabling the transistor the problem will never arise.
    So it's possible to help your board a bit by undervolting and using decent cooling. Or perhaps a hardware mod.
    Also:
    However Intel was very careful to point out that this is not a full blown recall. The why is simple.

    If you have a desktop system with six SATA ports driven off of P67/H67 chipset, there’s a chance (at least 5%) that during normal use some of the 3Gbps ports will stop working over the course of 3 years. The longer you use the ports, the higher that percentage will be. If you fall into this category, chances are your motherboard manufacturer will set up some sort of an exchange where you get a fixed board. The motherboard manufacturer could simply desolder your 6-series chipset and replace it with a newer stepping if it wanted to be frugal.
    So only those affected by the problem (i.e., people with dead ports) will have their boards replaced, it seems.
    Last edited by zalbard; 02-01-2011 at 05:40 AM.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  17. #267
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,806
    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    So only those affected by the problem (i.e., people with dead ports) will have their boards replaced, it seems.
    That would mean you are forced to sit on a timebomb instead of having a fully functional product. 8 million timebombs, minus the unsold stock. Not an attractive scenario for the customer.

    Getting all customers to return the boards right away would create an interesting logistics problem though. Not the mention the fact that the average Joe who doesn't read tech news probably isn't aware of anything.

    But it's not like Intal can choose whatever solution they like. At least in the EU consumer protection rules would force the manufacturer to take back any mobo with an undisputed malfunction and replace it right away.

  18. #268
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    4,466
    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    Some interesting info here.

    So it's possible to help your board a bit by undervolting and using decent cooling. Or perhaps a hardware mod.
    Also:

    So only those affected by the problem (i.e., people with dead ports) will have their boards replaced, it seems.
    All I am going to say is that Intel did not set $700 million to the side for this issue if they did not have the intention of replacing every chip out there, simple as that. Until the board makers actually release statements of how they will handle this everything is speculation. However, if they do not want unhappy customers they will replace the boards no questions asked when requested regardless if the issue is showing up or not. The board makers can use this issue to boost customer loyalty by taking care of their customers as quickly and efficient as possible and it will cost them close to nothing since Intel is taking full responsibility for the issue.
    CPUID http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=484051
    http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=484051
    http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=554982
    New DO Stepping http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=555012
    4.8Ghz - http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=794165

    Desk Build
    FX8120 @ 4.6Ghz 24/7 / Asus Crosshair V /HD7970/ 8Gb (4x2Gb) Gskill 2133Mhz / Intel 320 160Gb OS Drive, WD 256GB Game Storage

    W/C System
    (CPU) Swiftech HD (GPU) EK HD7970 with backplate (RAM) MIPS Ram block (Rad/Pump) 3 x Thermochill 120.3 triple rads and Dual MCP355's with Heatkiller dual top and Cyberdruid Prism res / B*P/Koolance Compression Fittings and Quick Disconnects.

  19. #269
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Utnorris View Post
    The board makers can use this issue to boost customer loyalty by taking care of their customers as quickly and efficient as possible and it will cost them close to nothing since Intel is taking full responsibility for the issue.
    That's a very good point. Hope this is what's going to happen.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  20. #270
    SLC
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,953
    So... how low can we go on PCH voltage while keeping it stable?

  21. #271
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toon
    Posts
    1,555
    I've been using 0.85 on some systems, more to keep temps down than for this issue.

    The question is how low do we have to go to stop it frying the ports, and if a fix along these lines works can't the BIOS vendors apply it in a new BIOS?
    Intel i7 920 C0 @ 3.67GHz
    ASUS 6T Deluxe
    Powercolor 7970 @ 1050/1475
    12GB GSkill Ripjaws
    Antec 850W TruePower Quattro
    50" Full HD PDP
    Red Cosmos 1000

  22. #272
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sunny Florida
    Posts
    194
    CPU: i5 2500K @4.5ghz/1.30v
    CPU Cooler: Phantek
    Mobo:Gigabyte P67-UD5-B3
    MEM: Gskill RipjawsX @2164
    PSU: Seasonic X1050
    Graphics: SLI MSI gtx560 TFII/OC Edition
    Monitor:27"HP 2710m x2
    Drives: 2x PlextorM3 Pro 256gb SSD Raid0 /Ocz Vertex2 80gb SSD
    VisionTek 120gb SSD/Kingston HyperX 240gb SSD/Verbatim 240gb SSD
    Case: mod Rocketfish
    OS's: Win 7x64 SP1
    Mouse:Mionix Naos 5000
    KB: Max Keyboard Nighthawk x8 Cherry browns w/ red leds

  23. #273
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,359
    Quote Originally Posted by initialised View Post
    I've been using 0.85 on some systems, more to keep temps down than for this issue.

    The question is how low do we have to go to stop it frying the ports, and if a fix along these lines works can't the BIOS vendors apply it in a new BIOS?
    You had a temp problem
    Question : Why do some overclockers switch into d*ckmode when money is involved

    Remark : They call me Pro Asus Saaya yupp, I agree

  24. #274
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by AMD_Freak View Post
    Don't you wish. AMD fanboys are hooping and hollering, but the funiest part? I still get FULL performance and no bug, unlike your little TLB bug that there was no escape from. A simple little port change, and I'm all good with zero problems AND enjoying performance you won't have even a shadow of until Bulldozer, and even then you'll be lucky to come close to catching up :p
    Ci7 7700K/32Gb Corsair Vengeance 3200mhz/Asus TUF Z270 Mark 1/PNY RTX 3090 XLR8 Epic-X/Samsung 960 Pro 512gb/Toshiba X300 6Tb/Corsair Carbide 400C/Corsair HX850i Platinum/EVGA CLC 240 AIO/Windows 10 Pro

  25. #275
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by One_Hertz View Post
    So... how low can we go on PCH voltage while keeping it stable?
    ^This

    Planning on doing it myself, still figuring out how to test stability. (defently gotta double check everything else is 100% stable)

    If memory is right, had x58 SB running at 1v with out any trouble for 4 months.
    Motherboard: GigaByte P67UD4 f6 | CPU: Intel 2500k 4.5ghz 1.26v | Memory: GSkill 2x4gb @ 1600mhz 1.34v | PSU: SeaSonic X650 Gold 650W | Video: AMD 6970 Koolance water block 880c/1450mem 1.035v | HDD: WD 640gb cavier black: VelociRaptor 300gb: Intel x-25 g2 80gb | Sound: Asus xonar D1 | OS: W7 64bit

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 891011121314 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •