Sandy Bridge Bug 2X Costly as Pentium Math Bug

[Wisecracker]

Eight (8) million is more than a few.

There have been some reports from the side of AMD ridiculing Intel's mistake, but we should be fair and recognize that microprocessors are highly complex marvels and engineering and AMD has made mistakes as well - such as the TLB bug in the company's first quad-core server processor - the 2007 Opteron CPU with Barcelona core.

Fail.

 

[ballinjoey2332]

Does this mean the sandy bridge prices will rise?

 

[jimmysmitty]

Sorry, but we're talking 1993 money as compared to 2011. It's way worse than 2X.

Actually its probably not. You have it backwards. If you account for inflation then the amount in 1993 might be double or even more in 2011.

And this is the chipset, not the CPU itself which is quite different so costs wont be as bad. According to another article on THG, it should only affect 5% of users. Sort of like AMDs Barcelona L3 cache bug. It will only affect certain people.

Although its sad to see bugs like this its still nice to see Intel jumping on it so soon after release. Unlike AMD with their L3 bug which took a while.

Wow, you think after the P55 cpu socket issues they would have bumped up the QC a little. Guess not, they are too worried about aquiring Mcafee. lol

Thats completley different. Those sockets were manufactured by Foxconn, not intel. Intel had no control over the QC there. And it wasn't that bad. It was only on certain motherboards and most decent high end mobos were not affected.

Intel has QC over their CPUs and chipsets.

I wouldn't be too worried about it. A lot of the bugs in CPUs and chipsets tend to get overblown and wont actually affect the majority of the users. Still if it was me I would wait till the Z68 chipsets come out anyways. That way I could use Quick Sync and overclock like a crazy LN2er. Only on air.

 

[derek2006]

[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]My only concern is if it's going to be a bitch activating Windows on the new board, since the board is tied to the OS. I'm sure MS will have a policy for this, I just hope it's not a pain in the ass.[/citation]


I got a new motherboard and just dropped it in a little over a month ago. Turned my computer on and windows found the drivers for the onboard stuff and within 2 system reboots and 20 minutes it was back to normal with no reactivation.

 

[firefoxx04]

[citation][nom]PudgyChicken[/nom]I like how all the AMD fanboys are so happy about this, thinking that it's great for business. Well, I hate to break it to you, but AMD's shitty processors (including those that have yet to be released), are still going to be shitty processors by the time this blows over. This doesn't change the fact that Intel's processors are a good 2-3 generations ahead of AMD's, with the advent of Quick-Sync as well as older features like Hyperthreading. So sorry, you still lose.[/citation]


you mad?

 

[slothy89]

[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]Yes going from 70 to 100 FPS is sooo important[/citation]
The point I was making is that the CPU does effect the ability of a PC to play certain games. And in my case that 30% FPS increase was enough to take the games I was playing at the time (MW2 and BF:BC2 mainly) from a just playable 30-45 FPS to nearly steady 50-60 (at full spec) with no change to GFX. Also at the lower FPS the frames weren't regular, but jittered a bit. With the new CPU, whilst the fps wasnt much more, the framerate was constant with less lag spikes.

 

[edilee]

Right now would have been a great time for the new AMD Bulldozer CPU's to be released...LOL. These things happen and get resolved but this won't do Intel any good at all. I was planning a new build around the 2600K and it is a good thing I don't have the money right now for that build...shew.

 

[tsnorquist]

In related news, Fedex & UPS stock up 100 fold =)

 

[silverblue]

[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Actually its probably not. You have it backwards. If you account for inflation then the amount in 1993 might be double or even more in 2011.[/citation]

Yep, I used the word "worse" instead of "less" and jumped on my mistake quite quickly. Turns out that $475m is a little over $700m now so the costs of both issues may not be too different.

 

[retirepresident]

Its sound like Toms is protecting there cash cows intel.

 

[jamesedgeuk2000]

[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]Sorry, but we're talking 1993 money as compared to 2011. It's way worse than 2X.[/citation]

Actually its way less than 2x, inflation goes the other way, the 1993 amount will be larger today.

 

[sudeshc]

but still it wont matter much to Intel. its not the amount of money but the reputation that matters.

 

[jkflipflop98]

[citation][nom]sudeshc[/nom]but still it wont matter much to Intel. its not the amount of money but the reputation that matters.[/citation]

That's exactly correct.

 

[elbert]

I have to agree its 2x worse. Unlike the fdiv bug where only a few customers needed/required replacements. Just about everyone will want there motherboard's chipset fixed. The real damage here is everyone will wait for the fix before buying these motherboards and CPU's. Many, not requiring the fdiv fix, just keep on buying and even got in on some sale out deals.

 

[professorprofessorson]

To be fair, the TLB bug had nothing on this, as this is a issue that can cause permanent damage over time. The Intel spin of "roughly 5% of systems to be affected over a three-year period" sounds extremely generous, even as a rough estimate. Considering they just now caught onto this issue they clearly have no idea just how widespread the damage will be.

As for the TLB bug, you already had to go to extreme levels just to get the TLB bug to even happen, and even then, oh wow, system lock up, so you have to shut down and restart. They even provided a fix for the TLB issue asap, so those who had concerns could rest assured the bug could be prevented. I have one of the Phenom x3 8400 cpus running here in one of my computers as is, and I run it with the TLB fix disabled. I have as of yet to actually run into the TLB bug, and I dont know a single person personally who has in fact on the original Phenoms.

 

[mdsiu]

[citation][nom]milktea[/nom]Intel (or at least a few at Intel) did this on purpose to give AMD some breathing room. Things a more exciting with competition.[/citation]

moron fanboy

 

[krusher33]

The way I see it, the QC system is pretty decent in the sense that they've released many chips without this huge of an issue for awhile now. But there's always going to be something missed and all you can do is fix flaw, improve QC based off the experience, and move on.

AMD fanboy here and I'm not laughing at Intel's issue. But I did enjoy a laugh by HWBot's comment this morning on Facebook. Said something to the effect of "AMD's new slogan for upcoming Bulldozer: 'SATA works' "

 

[Guest]

"$473,000,000.00 in 1993 had the same buying power as $719,830,000.00 in 2010.

Annual inflation over this period was 2.50%."

 

[The Greater Good]

[citation][nom]retirepresident[/nom]Its sound like Toms is protecting there cash cows intel.[/citation]

Where is Intel's cash cows?

 

[T_T]

This article is well informed. The content is very interesting, but what's even better are the comments from the respective "fanboys". I like to think i'm neutral, meaning not for or against either AMD or Intel. I've used both, and there really aren't very many real life differences to make you appreciate either company more than the other. Comparing benchmarks just doesn't do it for me.

What makes me laugh, though, is that all the Intel fanboys are being very defensive about this article; almost as if the article were written by AMD. It looks to me as if their (Intel fanboys) perfect little world just came crashing down.

I would have to agree, though, that prematurely releasing Bulldozer would only put AMD in the same boat Intel is in now. If this happens, I would have to laugh at the AMD fanboys then.

 

[freshnbaked]

its 722.8 million....i could afford a Eurocom laptop with that kinda money!

 

[mattoneous]

Wow you can run below the resolution of an Xbox360 circa 2006. Good for you.

[citation][nom]jasonpwns[/nom]You don't even need to be an AMD fan boy to see how retarded and bias your comment was. I apologize, but for gaming processors really don't mean jack. I have an Athlon ii X4 2.8ghz and I can play any game on high at 1440x900. Sure I am not getting 1080p, but whatever. My processor is way faster then processors from 2-3 generations ago.[/citation]

 

[randomkid]

[citation][nom]bv90andy[/nom]So much for their record profits. I know where those will be spent. Too bad. because this will finally be payed by the consumer.[/citation]

Actually, it's already been paid for by those who bought Intel's more pricey processors in the past.

 

[palladin9479]

Some of you guys need to take a step back and realize how Intel sells its platform to see why their gonna take a significant hit in the wallet for this. While the CPU's may be unaffected, Intel practically gives away its CPUs to the OEM's for a guarantee that they will use a full Intel platform. They make their money on the chipsets not on the CPUs.

All the tier 1 OEM's get to opt into a program where they get rebates that are 90% or more (in some cased the rebate is more then the cost of the CPU) of the CPU price. A $200 Intel CPU to you would cost $20 or less to them. In order to participate in this program they must first agree to only use an all Intel platform for the CPU. Because most OEM's get their mobo's custom designed for their cases this isn't a big issue, they just order them with all Intel "approved" components. Intel is making bank on the chipsets and network controllers, not the CPUs. The second requirement for this program, which was removed in the past few years, was that the OEM had to ~only~ offer Intel branded products. This is how Dell / HP / Compaq and friends are able to offer those $500 ~ 700or less PC's while still making decent profit margins.

 

[dude_90]

i want to buy a asus n53sv with sandy bridge 2630 , i'm so worry about it ,This model has a problem too ?