yorkfield late too?

[Shintai]

And that kinda loops back...

[nemrod]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=306

regards

Yes but information come from pcinpact another french web site.
Hardware.fr was first to speak about that, then pcinpact with more details.
Hardware.fr has put
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
"l'information vient de nous être confirmée officiellement par Intel."
Update: the information was officialy confirmed by Intel
and now has remove. It is far unclear.

And hardware.fr isn't the inquirer. This is usually a great source of information.
(At least non-french should know Franck Delattre which has write some article for hardware.fr like http://www.hardware.fr/articles/682-...e-amd-k10.html )

In a new news on hardware.fr about january:
http://www.hardware.fr/news/lire/07-12-2007/
"Pour les Yorkfield, déclinaison quad core du Penryn, il faudra attendre quelques semaines de plus."
have to wait few week more.

I believe we have to wait to know

[Donnie27]

Shintai,
maybe it's about getting rid of old 65nm processors at good prices and building inventory for 45nm. But why should they release dual cores but no quad cores then?
Anyway that's to much of a coincidence. I don't believe it until confirmed by another source/Intel (I really want my 45nm system in early feb! lol)
What about shipped Harpertown QCs? Stop ship, recall or does no one care?

Dual Cores fill a much larger market than Quad Cores. They have a higher turn-over rate and require orders to be constantly filled.

Intel can hold up ANY of the errata on from their published list of them. None of them are "Show Stoppers" as one poster so eloquently put it. Easiest way to sandbag. Too many folks complain and they just say, "look Ma we fixed it"

Yet, you might be right, Intel said Q1, not early or late Q1. They also said they're on track/time as well.

[Zucker2k]

Absol-Frackin'-lutely QFT!

A Bug becomes an excuse to hold back a certain targeted line of New Products. They then sell off the equivalent model/s from the previous generation. Then when they think they've sold enough, wa-la, problem fixed. IMHO, this is worse than if Intel had a real problem. Common sense guys. FSB problem on Quad Core processors at 1333MHz but Quad Core processors running at 1600MHz are OK? Get real I'm not about to believe something this lame. I'll say it again, Intel and AMD wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the @$$!

See any low stock warnings of any of Intel's current Quad Cores including Xeons?

I don't think Intel could beat me at the waiting game - they'll go bankrupt.

[Millyons]

High FSB Bug?

Maybe Intel isnt satisfied how high on fsb they can go and wants us to clock them higher cause of lower multies. Fixing the FSB wall


lol imagine that

[terrace215]

So... Intel does NOT confirm, and in fact, the French site has retracted claims of confirmation...

[Skratch]

rumors?

[safan80]

my yorkfield works great!

[Aivas47a]

safan, what are you seeing for max fsb on your yorkie so far?

[safan80]

safan, what are you seeing for max fsb on your yorkie so far?

lol I've only done 10x400, 11x400 and 13x333 so far. I haven't toyed with the fsb much yet.

[Zytek_Fan]

Absol-Frackin'-lutely QFT!

A Bug becomes an excuse to hold back a certain targeted line of New Products. They then sell off the equivalent model/s from the previous generation. Then when they think they've sold enough, wa-la, problem fixed. IMHO, this is worse than if Intel had a real problem. Common sense guys. FSB problem on Quad Core processors at 1333MHz but Quad Core processors running at 1600MHz are OK? Get real I'm not about to believe something this lame. I'll say it again, Intel and AMD wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the @$$!

See any low stock warnings of any of Intel's current Quad Cores including Xeons?

Yeah, they're gonna clear out as much as they can before the bring anymore Penryns to the market...

[Donnie27]

Yeah, they're gonna clear out as much as they can before the bring anymore Penryns to the market...

Thats what they might be doing. All of this could just be a Lame Hoax.

[Zytek_Fan]

Thats what they might be doing. All of this could just be a Lame Hoax.

Seems a bit unlikely for a bug to happen to Intel at this point. If I knew some people at Intel I'd ask about, but I don't...

I would have expected a bug with Nehalem, not Yorkfield.

They're gonna try to unload all the 65nms on OEMs that's for sure.

[nemrod]

So... Intel does NOT confirm, and in fact, the French site has retracted claims of confirmation...

You could write a different story. Intel doesn't want that's a public information.
(unknows reasons: just not provide yet yorkfield (65nm stock, fab...), minor "bug" with maximum effect on nvidia chipset... Even if Nvidia use to have bugs, not sure that Intel could explain ES work but retail not...) then somebody speak to much and now they have ask to remove any confirmation because there is no problem with intel chipset (xeon) and they don't want a negative image.
When you take the PR manager, Dan Snyder comment:

"45nm Core 2 Quad launch is planned for Q1'08, and we are still on track for that. We can't comment on web speculation."

He doesn't answer, there is no problem. He just answer "yorkfield will be there Q1".

Anyway, we don't know the truth but I don't think that hardware.fr has wrote: "intel confirmed" without reason. And as there is a second source (pcinpact) with more detail. I don't believe that was only a misunterpretation of the guy of hardware.fr.

So we will not have any public confirmation by Intel, and just have to wait to know and techreport is on the same line:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13756
"The late February/early March schedule mentioned by Hardware.fr is a far cry from the January 20 date that's been quoted on other sites, but it still fits within Snyder's Q1 2008 time frame. If Hardware.fr is right and the chips have indeed been postponed, though, that could give AMD enough time to prep for Intel's 45nm assault by rolling out bug-free, B3 revision Phenoms and introducing models with higher clock speeds."

[terrace215]

You could write a different story. Intel doesn't want that's a public information.
(unknows reasons: just not provide yet yorkfield (65nm stock, fab...), minor "bug" with maximum effect on nvidia chipset... Even if Nvidia use to have bugs, not sure that Intel could explain ES work but retail not...) then somebody speak to much and now they have ask to remove any confirmation because there is no problem with intel chipset (xeon) and they don't want a negative image.
When you take the PR manager, Dan Snyder comment:

"45nm Core 2 Quad launch is planned for Q1'08, and we are still on track for that. We can't comment on web speculation."

He doesn't answer, there is no problem. He just answer "yorkfield will be there Q1".

Anyway, we don't know the truth but I don't think that hardware.fr has wrote: "intel confirmed" without reason. And as there is a second source (pcinpact) with more detail. I don't believe that was only a misunterpretation of the guy of hardware.fr.

So we will not have any public confirmation by Intel, and just have to wait to know and techreport is on the same line:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13756
"The late February/early March schedule mentioned by Hardware.fr is a far cry from the January 20 date that's been quoted on other sites, but it still fits within Snyder's Q1 2008 time frame. If Hardware.fr is right and the chips have indeed been postponed, though, that could give AMD enough time to prep for Intel's 45nm assault by rolling out bug-free, B3 revision Phenoms and introducing models with higher clock speeds."

The fact that the hardware.fr site pulled the "intel confirmed" update is very interesting, IMO.

Also, I think Intel would have more than a "no comment" if this affected anything that was currently shipping: Xeons, QX9650, etc.

They *might* "no comment" if they were moving back un-launched parts only.
We'll see. If this goes another few business days with no more information out of Intel, I think we write it off, at least until Jan 20 comes and goes.

[savantu]

Intel never mentioned January 20 as the launch date.They've always said Q1.

As a result , you can't think of a delay when the company hasn't committed to a specific date.

[terrace215]

Intel never mentioned January 20 as the launch date.They've always said Q1.

As a result , you can't think of a delay when the company hasn't committed to a specific date.

Intel may have mentioned Jan 20 *privately* to partners.

[Shintai]

Intel may have mentioned Jan 20 *privately* to partners.

So they release on a sunday?

[JumpingJack]

Intel never mentioned January 20 as the launch date.They've always said Q1.

As a result , you can't think of a delay when the company hasn't committed to a specific date.

This is the best point ... rarely do we every see official company statements pinning down a launch date to a day more than a week or two prior -- for both Intel or AMD.

Most all launch dates we hear are rumored up from various sources, Taiwan board makers being the most common.

[terrace215]

So they release on a sunday?

If Sunday, Jan 20, is the release date for Wolfdales, would it be so surprising to have Yorkfield on the same day?

[nemrod]

So they release on a sunday?

Yes like the november 11...
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archi...071111comp.htm

[mascaras]

my yorkfield works great!

lol I've only done 10x400, 11x400 and 13x333 so far. I haven't toyed with the fsb much yet.

yep , but for example Q9450 only have multi x8.5 , we need High FSB

3.8ghz we need 450FSB stable
or for 4ghz we need at least 470 FSB stable


regards

[Millyons]

yep , but for example Q9450 only have multi x8.5 , we need High FSB

3.8ghz we need 450FSB stable
or for 4ghz we need at least 470 FSB stable


regards

8.5?


isnt it 8

[Zytek_Fan]

8.5?


isnt it 8

8.5

[pH(x)]

according to
http://www.hardware.fr/news/lire/05-12-2007/#9264

"wolfdale will be there in january but yorkfield will be push up to end of february or march due to a bug which could crash computer. Strange thing is that QX9650 and Xeons are still sold."

hardware. fr is usually a good source of information so, I don't now what is the truth in this case.
There is a bug with yorkfield? But why QX and Xeon are still sold
The yorkfield will be late? What is the real reason? No competiton? 45nm shortage? Real bug? Problems if they kill AMD?

Great reporting/posting OP

Excellent thread.