Intel Identifies Chipset Design Error, Implementing Solution

[godsfist]

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.

[MythSquare]

Any reference to where it's said that SATA2 ports of 0 and 1 are not affected?

[initialised]

Any reference to where it's said that SATA2 ports of 0 and 1 are not affected?

Only SCAN are saying this.

[sharan_ahuja]

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.

[MythSquare]

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?

[ragnarok95]

Port 0 and 1 are 6GB/s so there are not affected.

[Lanek]

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 )

[andressergio]

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 ?

[Johnny87au]

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

[flesheatinvirus]

I am running ssd in sata III 0-1 ports with no issues on this UD5. No cold boot issues either using f6c bios.

[sutyi]

Sorry guys but this is just to funny not to post.

[Leeghoofd]

hahhaa massman strikes again :p

[PatRaceTin]

Now i move my sata to port 0-1

[v0dka]

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.

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!

[godsfist]

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/

[zalbard]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/t...point-sata-bug

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.

[v0dka]

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.

[Utnorris]

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.

[zalbard]

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.

[One_Hertz]

So... how low can we go on PCH voltage while keeping it stable?

[initialised]

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?

[AMD_Freak]

[Leeghoofd]

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

[moshpit]

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

[Sgt.McRuff]

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.