Intel Identifies Cougar Point Chipset Error, Halts Shipments

[cbass64]

I'm having a hard time understanding why several people are bashing the SNB CPU...the issue is with the Gen2 SATA controller on the CPT chipset. I'm not saying this isn't a huge issue, I just don't get why there are so many people bashing something they don't even understand...

 

[silverblue]

I think the frustration of not having a bona fide motherboard to put it in will be quite pronounced. However, if you're not using the SATA2 ports, it's not exactly a massive issue anyway.

 

[jprahman]

Because they're either AMD fanbois or are ticked because they bought Sandy Bridge CPUs early and feel they got screwed.

 

[house70]

That's gonna cost them some serious money...

 

[jj463rd]

All those responsible will be taken out back and shot.

 

[Reynod]

What a disaster.

They obviously tried to sweep it under the carpet and got caught.

Intel's validation process must be pretty poor.

 

[willie nugs]

Wow, I'm no grammar/spelling/punctuation Nazi but seriously, no periods?

Um, apparently you are a grammar Nazi.....

 

[dco]

Karma's a bitch ain't it.
Guess this is what they get for greedily releasing so many new sockets, all those profits gone.

 

[heuritisk]

Almost thought this was an april of fools day. but april still far away...
but stil..

 

[kilo_17]

At least they came clean about it, could've pulled a Toyota 😛

+1

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]Very good for them for nipping this in the bud now. Yes - I'm sure their testing for future products will be a LOT more stringent. But with that - and them readily stopping and fixing this problem will put a little more trust in future Intel products. (We've all seen what happens when a hardware manufacture tries to "hide" flaws....)Just for clarification - this is with the MB Chipset - NOT with SB CPU's themselves.[/citation]

Actually, the problem isn't the mainboard chipset...it's specifically the SATA 3.0gb/s harddrive controller itself, which not all LGA1155 mainboards use. Gigabyte uses the Marvell 88SE9128 Raid controller on their GA-P67A-UD7 mainboard.

 

[islasian]

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.



Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20030070-64.html#ixzz1CfMzRAdW

 

[joelmartinez]

I'm glad I didn't buy, waiting for x68 will probably wait a couple months though for these kinks to be worked out. This kinda screws up everybody who just bought a build or is about to buy a build.

 

[slothy89]

Love how everyone is saying this is a huge issue effecting everyone with SB, and is the same as the cooked CPU pins problem.. But what you are all forgetting is that they clearly state, both for this issue and the burnt pins, that it only occurs in situations with heavy load. Namely High Voltages and Excess Heat.

So the Burnt pins came from highly over volted OCd CPUs (even enthusiest/gamers do relatively moderate OCs). And this Sata Controller issue is a problem from heavy I/O loads. If you don't use your PC to render Video/Images 12+hours a day 7 days a week, there's a good chance you wont experience the issue, or at least not to anywhere near the same extent.

I'm not saying you shouldn't RMA your board, just that you should be safe to continue using the one you have until Arpil when the revised boards are available, so that your wait time for replacement is minimal.

Everyone take a breath and calm down a little

 

[Guest]

I expect MOBO manufactures will "repair" motherboards by desoldering the old chip and putting in a new one. I doubt these "repaired" boards will be as reliable. I won't be buying one of these for at least a year now.

 

[cangelini]

[citation][nom]robwright[/nom]Nemo, I have a hard time believing you A) read the complete story rather than just the headline, and B) know anything about the technology involved. Your claim that Tom's -- or any other news outlet/review site for that matter -- should have known about this is laughable, and your suggestion that Tom's knew about this info and sat on it is absolutely absurd. Please think hard before you post, please.[/citation]

Thanks Rob!

Nemo, it's not easy to create an issue that Intel says will manifest itself over the course of the next three years.

With that said, guess what I've been working on all day? Can I get SSDs plugged into all four SATA 3 Gb/s ports to crash? Yes. Am I sure I know why yet? No. Let us generate definitive results before we draw any of our own conclusions. Intel's party line is pretty clear here: the issue is bad enough to essentially recall Cougar Point. Of course, the company won't go into more detail than that; and so I get to spend all day/night trying to accelerate the issue 😉

As soon as I know something, so will you!

Chris

 

[Guest]

希望台灣地區可以表示一下要怎麼處理

 

[x4dm]

[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]That's exactly the most important question.I wish Intel rename the fixed chipset so it is easy to spot, but I guess that it would be very difficult to tell without checking on the OEM web site...Most vendors will not tell the revision version of the mother.[/citation]
If a mobo vendor sells you a recalled chipset, they can be sued. More-so, why would any reputable vendor even do that, especially with Intel footing the bill? Greed is prevalent, but imagine Gigabyte or ASUS selling you a product they know has a high likelihood of failing in 3 years - and you know if they did that the press would have a field day on them.

 

[The Greater Good]

[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]ummmmm....If you're using a product with a KNOWN, and more importantly - Publicly Known - flaw, you have Zero grounds for a lawsuit.[/citation]

You know how I know you're not a lawyer?

 

[wolley74]

Well this was an unexpected wrench in the works :/ was looking forward to ordering my new rig's parts from newegg today but the motherboard / processor was already removed from my cart 🙁 ohwell, though I would like to know how this slipped past their tests, it's making me scratch my head.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

No wonder.They rushed the SB release.

 

[retirepresident]

I'm glad intel is having a bad start for 2011. Paid Back is a B!+(H. I hope they lose more $$$$$$$. LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL.

 

[kkiddu]

@ All Intel bashers

C'mon. I've got no bias for either of the two, and I own an AMD (Completely happy with the proccy, never let me down), but plan to go for an Intel for my next upgrade.

What you should know is that a LOT of testing is done before releasing these things into the mainstream market. Did you not see the X-Labs tour pics Toms put up ? Any problem like that is unintended, but some times they do slip through all the rigorous testing. They make great chips, now they just made a mistake. Give them a break.

 

[psiboy]

1. Everywhere else on the web Intel are quoted as saying "5-15%"

2."None of your data is at risk—anything on the drive already can’t be affected by the link degrading and ultimately failing, after all." What a load of rubbish! Common sense tells you that if the link is failing when in use there is every chance your data will become corrupted! This isn't news it is a parroting of Intel's' "best case" spin doctors!

 

[i_am_aronman]

[citation][nom]geekapproved[/nom]Wow Intel is really messing up lately. First the P55 had the cpu sockets burning out and now the P67 has this problem. That's what happens when you try to release too soon. Hopefully AMD learned their lesson with Phenom I.[/citation]
I guess they did learn their lesson because it feels like forever before their bulldozer CPU comes out. They have been working on it for like 5 years though so it should good.