Core Duo Processor Problems

Microsoft Driver Bug Saps Core Duo Power ...

Has anyone seen this article yet?

I am interested to see what people's thoughts on this are. Especially since they new about it for 6 months and nobody said anything.
51 answers Last reply
More about core processor problems
  1. first off, im not here to defend intel or microsoft, but anytime you plug something extra into a device powered by a battery IT'S GOING TO DRAIN POWER FROM THE BATTERY !!!. just like a digital camera is supposed to take so many pics on one battery charge but if you use the flash every time you will get less. the article failed to give us facts. like what they plugged in and how long did they have it plugged in. give us the facts not just the hype.
  2. Did you actually read the article? They were using an external device.

    "For our second test, our engineers connected a USB 2.0 external combo drive (IBM DN-224E), and ran Mobilemark 2005 - Reader Benchmark on both systems again. The external drive was powered by its own external power adapter, which means it should avoid draining any power from the system to which it's attached."

    If what you are saying is true then why didn't we see a uniform decrease on both platforms. Besides, usb suppllies about 500mA of power, not enough to account for that kind of power drain.

    Anyway, I was not aiming to debate its authenticity, but to discuss its implications for the industry as a whole. Topics like reviewers missing it, them trying to hide it, possible implications in the Intel-Apple deal that features this platform as well, and most importantly what it means to us as consumers.
  3. I voted both for two reasons:

    1. It's MS's driver so they're responsible for it.
    2. Intel should have done some more thorough testings with regards to external USB 2.0 devices and measured power drain. They obviously didn't do this.

    I fault Intel more than I do M$, but i'm an equal opportunity hater.

    -mpjesse
  4. i stand corrected, i read the wrong article. i read the 25 page review. clicked on the wrong link

    thank you,
  5. Hard to say with 100% sureness of who is truly at fault. Fact is the MS driver works fine for USB 2.0 devices on other Intel Chipsets as well as AMD cpu-based chipsets. For this reason I would label it as Intel's fault. MS could have done something to fix it too, but since I'm thinking like 95% Intel at fault I vote Intel...
  6. ...And here I hoped the days of them trying to let us find their mistakes after they cover them up were disappearing.

    Don't you just love being part of the largest Beta testing group ever?
  7. It's probably both their faults. Microsoft has known about that problem and hasn't fixed it for too long. Intel probably inadvertantly used an incompatible component somewhere that triggers the problem. They they've said in the article, one faulty component screws up the entire power saving scheme.

    I couldn't help but note the desperation in the article's tone though. I know people have been complaining about the perceived (don't want to pass judgement here) bias or lack of quality of the articles in Tom's Hardware recently, or for a while, so it's funny reading this one.

    Quote:
    so that the responsible parties have a clear channel to you - their customers, and our readers - so that someone's inadvertent oversight doesn't impact your work and your life.


    Or their recent opinion update.

    http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/29/opinion_core_duo_microsoft_power_drain/

    Quote:
    This is not a "We're Holier-Than-Thou" rant, and we're not looking to laud our victory and keep score. Indeed, far from it. I don't want Tom's Hardware Guide to be in any way, shape or form "Holier-Than-Thou" with regards to its competition.


    Quote:
    One among us shouldn't have to be the watchdog who puts in longer hours of testing in order to make sure as sure that a product will not disappoint and anger consumers. Sure we'll get plenty of praise for having been the one reviewer among many to have caught out Intel and Microsoft on this one, but as a consumer and a reader of many reviews I don't want to have to rely on just the one publication.


    The lengths they are going to to say they aren't gloating yet the fact that they are still sounding like they are taking the high road is hilarious. They really should just present the facts as they are and keep the moral lecturing to a minimum. They don't really need to tell us they are doing all this work for us. The fact that they are providing new and relevent information speaks of their commitment more than their words.
  8. One person as of this moment has voted that MS is the problem. I understand saying Intel is the problem, and also saying both are the problem, but just MS? Would the MS voter volunteer the reason they said it's strictly MS's fault?

    I'm not looking to bash, I just want to know what makes you think it is strictly an MS problem.
  9. Personally, I think its both, though I forgot to vote in my own poll until just now...

    Intel and MS both have a history of hiding their problems til someone else exposes them.

    I also thought the tone of the articles was a bit amusing, but at least they seem to be trying to improve.
  10. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what this means?
    Page 2:
    "To keep the USB port awake, we continuously read data from each device using a standard electricians' tool."

    A standard electrician's tool? To keep it awake?

    I can see why intel shipped it. It still outperforms the older systems in battery life. True, it could be alot better, as the article proves, but its not what you would call a 'showstopper'. Would they hold up a multimillion dollar release for this? I doubt it. Especially since it can be "patched".

    Did THG attach a USB device in the 1st review? I didn't see one mentioned in the Test Setup. If they didn't then how did they come to this conclusion that it was a USB device issue?
  11. And now for a little conspiracy theory.
    I wonder how many of these "bugs" there are that Intel knows about, and maybe Amd doesn't. On paper, the turion should get much better battery life than it does.
  12. I emailed Tom's on this. Why not run a different OS to find out if is a windows issue? Linux anyone? A simple live CD would work.
    Or am I missing the boat on this one :?:
  13. Quote:
    I emailed Tom's on this. Why not run a different OS to find out if is a windows issue? Linux anyone? A simple live CD would work.
    Or am I missing the boat on this one :?:

    The Munich labs are working on all of that. They need to sleep too :wink:

    And THG isn't gloating on this one. We're pointing out that of all the reviews of Core Duo why the hell is it that nobody thought to plug in a friggen USB device and use the system under "normal" conditions?

    Corner cutting, that's why. I can only imagine the amount of moral outrage there would be if this turned up a few months from now because Joe Consumer who just shelled out a couple of grand on his new machine bothered to do some testing. Many people in the industry who spoke to us commented on how Intel would have got away with selling Core Duo through thousands of units before the problem was caught out - they were counting on the fact that everyone in the industry press wouldn't be able to catch a cold let alone a simple bug. And get this: They almost did.

    That pisses me off to a great extent. Whatever about settling old scores (and I would be otherwise loath to mention here that THG is often scurrilously called a forgiving Intel fan boy by the same people who missed this) there's the fact that their laziness could cost us all an awful lot of money. That annoys every single one of us here, and I think you'll agree that we've gone to lengths to reign that in and not let it near our writing to a great extent.


    (…just imagine me waving my arms frantically whilst reading that, for greater effect…)
  14. With the present data given, I have to say that this is 100% M$'s fault.

    If a simple registry change can solve the problem? M$.

    If it's M$'s driver causing the problem? M$.

    Should Intel have caught it sooner? It sounds to me like they did, but there was nothing that they could do about it. If it's totally M$'s fault, what can Intel do to fix it? Not a thing.

    Should Intel have delayed the product? Nah. Why? Two reasons: 1) It still has better power consumption than the old, even with this flaw. 2) If the flaw is completely from M$'s software, then a simple patch/update will solve all problems with it. So why delay the hardware? The customer is still better off with the new over the old, and all problems should go away with a simple software update.

    Granted, further data may change my outlook, but for right now, it totally looks like M$'s fault. But I agree that we should see the same tests done with MacOS and/or Linux to verify if this really is totally M$'s software at fault.
  15. Our gut feeling from dealing with all this is that Intel might have more to do with it than Microsoft. But we're in Wait and See mode.
  16. Quote:
    Our gut feeling from dealing with all this is that Intel might have more to do with it than Microsoft. But we're in Wait and See mode.
    And maybe they did. Maybe it's all Intel's fault. It's kind of hard to make a decent judgement on that one way or the other when there's so much information missing, such as really basic things like if it's reproducable on a non-M$ OS.

    But again, if there's really just a registry change that fixes the whole thing, then it's definately a software problem, which makes it completely 100% M$.

    Now could Intel have maybe done more to raise awareness? Maybe. That depends on if they were hindered by an NDA or some such. Should Intel have delayed the launch for the fix? That's very debatable, depending a lot on if it's a hardware or software issue. All of this really hinges on umpteen different variables that are all unknowns right now.
  17. I am inclined to think that at the minimum, they share the blame, since even if it is wholey driver related, if Intel knew about it, they should have called M$ out on it.

    I don't blame Intel for releasing it, as it is an improvement in many ways, but for trying to hide the fact that there is a problem.
  18. And if Intel was under an NDA?
  19. Quote:
    And if Intel was under an NDA?

    Or vice versa? Our chaps are testing this, so wait for their results and we'll know.
  20. I concur w/ slvr_phoenix. Given the current information, its MS's fault. (Sorry I forgot to vote before) :)
    Its more than just simply blowing the whistle. I'm sure there's many issues with all kinds of hardware, regardless of who makes it!
    But from the consumer's side, even w/ the battery loss, its still an improvement over the older generation notebooks. You get more battery life, you get more performance, heck it has 2 processors compared to 1! Can you really complain about them launching this platform? If everyone waited until their products were error-free, we'd still be stuck in the 386 age.

    If I was in Intel's position, with this information that its MS's driver? Heck, launch that thing. Bottomline is that the consumer still benefits, even w/ this bug. And when they fix it, everyone will be even happier.

    Now if more information comes out saying its a hardware issue, I would blame THG for publishing this article before they had all the information. To me, thats sensationalism journalism - not what I expect from this site.
  21. A MS driver issue I can live with for a while, a hardware flaw in such a common area of use is simply not acceptable. I would have to blame BOTH on this one, even if it is a MS driver cause, Intel knew about this since before July and did nothing about it. I'd be extremely curious to see how the same system performed under Linux, this should have been done immediatly following the release of this article.

    I have a new Acer Core Duo Travelmate scheduled for delivery today, I guess I'll tell the FedEx man to "return to sender" and reorder when this issue is settled. Why should consumers be stuck with a flawed unit?
  22. Quote:
    Why should consumers be stuck with a flawed unit?
    I'm guessing that you've never in your life flashed firmware (such as BIOS) or updated software (such as Windows).

    You're right. Why should consumers settle for anything less than absolute perfection, regardless of how much of an improvement it may be over the prior version?

    Damn them for making the product so much better but still not perfect. Damn them! They should all burn in hell! They'll never see one penny of mine!

    That was, by the way, sarcasm. A bit over the top, I admit, but I believe that it makes the point.
  23. Please, you are taking my words completely out of context.

    I'm saying, I paid a premium for a notebook that promised a certain amount of extended battery life under normal use conditions. Now all of a sudden, I should accept the fact that this unit will not perform up to spec...Yea right, from my perspective that should not be acceptable and if its as simple as NOT buying right now (telling the FedEx guy no) and waiting for the solution to come to light or seeing how this thing play out....I can wait.

    If you can't wait and the USB / Battery thing is not a concern; then by all means buy. But to me, using gods gift of logic (you know, one of those things that separates us from animals), then this just simply does not make sense.

    If it's as simple as a quick flash or a registry hack or updating a driver, that would be fine BUT the issue has still not been completely pinpointed and I'm not about to gamble on new technology with my own cash.

    PS: slvr_phoenix - Thanks for the sarcasm an trying to flame me on this forum. I can see this is a wonderful, unbiased place to discuss technology issues...I won't be back. One question. When do you receive your next Intel paycheck?
  24. Quote:
    Please, you are taking my words completely out of context.
    Actually, I'm not. IMHO you're acting pretty stupid.

    Further, you're taking my words extremely out of context. Not only did my tag line make it pretty obvious that I was joking, but even my signature makes it clear that I'm not a serious person.

    Quote:
    I'm saying, I paid a premium for a notebook that promised a certain amount of extended battery life under normal use conditions. Now all of a sudden, I should accept the fact that this unit will not perform up to spec...Yea right, from my perspective that should not be acceptable and if its as simple as NOT buying right now (telling the FedEx guy no) and waiting for the solution to come to light or seeing how this thing play out....I can wait.
    It's your choice of course, to be as anal about it as you like. But you're getting way better performance, and still getting a longer battery life, even with the bug. And so far it sounds like a simple software update in the future will fix it. IMHO you're way over-reacting.

    Quote:
    If it's as simple as a quick flash or a registry hack or updating a driver, that would be fine BUT the issue has still not been completely pinpointed and I'm not about to gamble on new technology with my own cash.
    What's there to gamble? That you'll have awesome performance? That your battery life will still be the longest out there? Because that's the absolute worst case scenario of that gamble. Yeah dude, that's such a harsh gamble to take.

    Quote:
    PS: slvr_phoenix - Thanks for the sarcasm an trying to flame me on this forum. I can see this is a wonderful, unbiased place to discuss technology issues...I won't be back. One question. When do you receive your next Intel paycheck?
    Hey, if you've got a stick shoved so far up your bum that you can't laugh at what was obviously meant to be humor, then good riddance to you. And if you let one person's comments completely decide for you the benefit of an entire community, then you're clearly too much of a numb nutz to fit into any society. Frankly, I don't see losing you as a loss. THGC is based on having a sense of humor. You don't have to be smart. You don't have to be unopinionated. And you don't even have to have any computer experience. But flirked if you can't laugh at something that's obviously silly. And you won't last a second at THGC if you take every little thing personally, because frankly, some of us will say the dumbest of things. So buh-bye. So long.
  25. It's never personal...thanks for enlightening all of us with your superior wisdom...Thanks for not attacking me (LOL).
  26. I'm sure others will see your comments and feel free to express their honest opinion on this issue...
  27. Whatever dude.

    If you took the sarcasm personally, even with it bloody obvious that it wasn't, then I'm sorry. I really wasn't attacking you. I was just turning a point into something funny. It was over the top on purpose. I even said as much right in the post.

    As for everything after that though, it's totally deserved. If you're that thin skinned then you really don't belong here. Be open enough to admit that maybe you're over-reacting to such a little thing as that bug really is. Or grow a backbone and stick to your guns. Duke it out. Debate. Whatever. But running off crying? You won't last a second here with that kind of attitude, or more to the point, lack thereof.

    And for someone who is leaving, you sure aren't leaving. Are you gone or aren't you? Because there might be hope for you yet.
  28. Too f***'n funny. Nice how you tried to turn my comments / actions into some kind of over reaction. VERY NICE; when you are the one that over reacted with the flame jobs.

    Explain to me and the rest on this forum how my comments warrented that flame???

    At any rate, why would ANYONE want to stick around on a forum that forces their Dogma upon its members...Not exactly constructive dialog from my perspective.

    Then the backbone thing...Please anyone can see who is making this an issue. And we should take that one also as NOT PERSONAL. Of course it was intended as personal. I have not slandered you in any way, nor do I plan on going down to that level over something as silly as a USB / battery issue.

    Since we mostly agree that we cannot point the finger to Intel or MS until the alternative OS tests are performed, lets turn this into an extension of the original question.

    _____________________________________________________________
    Would you spend your own cash and pay a premium right now (with our limited knowledge of the problem) on a Core Duo based solution? <OR> Would you wait a few days / weeks / months to see how the issue plays out?
  29. Silver's right, thats kinda how things go here. You don't take anything personally, everyone has their opinions and usually no one likes anyone elses.

    On that matter, you are both right.

    Sniz, why should you pay for a product in which you don't feel like you are getting what you paid for.

    And Silver, the Core Duo is still a better product than whats out there, though I saw on anandtech (GASP! I said the bad word), that Intel is having supply chain problems with it that may make it obselete by the time it is readily available.

    By the way Silver, Though it may be M$s fault, I also haven't seen anything to prove that it isn't a fault with Intels design either. They have both screwed up in the past. We'll have to wait and see what the Linux tests show.
  30. slvr_phoenix, Do yourself a small favor. Unplug for a little while. Go socialize with some humans in person. Force some of your Dogma on them and see how they react to it, then slander them because they don't take you ideas as law. I can see you have much to learn about this world...grasshopper.
  31. Quote:
    Explain to me and the rest on this forum how my comments warrented that flame???
    What flame? I joked using sarcasm. You flipped out. There was no flame. You're just too thin skinned to realize that. Which means you might as well leave then because if you take everything that everyone says here personally you're not going to last long at all.

    Quote:
    At any rate, why would ANYONE want to stick around on a forum that forces their Dogma upon its members...Not exactly constructive dialog from my perspective.
    Now you're really losing me. What dogma? I don't see any dogma here. You're in a world of your own on that one. Nor, for that matter, is there any pushing. Dude, you can only be pushed around if you let yourself be pushed. If you feel you're being pushed, then stand tall. Hell, push back. You still have yet to debate a single thing. You do know that debating is a two way process, right?

    Quote:
    Then the backbone thing...Please anyone can see who is making this an issue. And we should take that one also as NOT PERSONAL. Of course it was intended as personal.
    Did I ever say that it wasn't personal? Serously. If you're going to stay here, then you're going to need to start standing up for yourself better than that. This isn't Fluffy Bunny Land where everyone shares lollipops and sunshine. Here people actually hold discourse. They throw things back and forth. Hard things. We don't hold your hand.

    Quote:
    I have not slandered you in any way, nor do I plan on going down to that level over something as silly as a USB / battery issue.
    1) It's only slander if it isn't true.
    2) When in print it's libel, not slander. Slander is verbal.
    3) Nor do I plan on ragging on your for anything to do with something as silly as a USB/battery issue. It had (still has) everything to do with you running away crying instead of standing up for yourself. It still does. Stand up for yourself already. Or leave. Whichever.

    Quote:
    Since we mostly agree that we cannot point the finger to Intel or MS until the alternative OS tests are performed, lets turn this into an extension of the original question.

    _____________________________________________________________
    Would you spend your own cash and pay a premium right now (with our limited knowledge of the problem) on a Core Duo based solution? <OR> Would you wait a few days / weeks / months to see how the issue plays out?
    If I had that kind of cash, and it came with a great GPU as well, I sure as hell would buy it in a heartbeat. I could use a new computer.

    Even with the bug, the battery life is longer, the performance is definately better, and even with the limited knowledge of the problem that we have, chances are that a software patch will fix it sooner or later anyway. But even if it never got fixed, it's still one heck of an awesome product. What can I buy right now that even remotely compares?

    I'd buy it with no regrets, regardless of how the solution plays out.
  32. Quote:
    slvr_phoenix, Do yourself a small favor. Unplug for a little while. Go socialize with some humans in person. Force some of your Dogma on them and see how they react to it, then slander them because they don't take you ideas as law. I can see you have much to learn about this world...grasshopper.


    You should think about taking your own advice. You are getting all bent out of shape by someone you don't know on a computer forum. If you plan on staying here, or succeeding in any social situation, you really need to get a sense of humor.

    Most of us here know not to take Silver personally.
  33. Quote:
    Silver's right, thats kinda how things go here. You don't take anything personally, everyone has their opinions and usually no one likes anyone elses.
    Damn straight. Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. That's what makes THGC fun. We've been doing too much tech support lately. We've grown weak and flabby. There hasn't been a good flame war in ages. :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Quote:
    And Silver, the Core Duo is still a better product than whats out there, though I saw on anandtech (GASP! I said the bad word), that Intel is having supply chain problems with it that may make it obselete by the time it is readily available.
    Now that wouldn't surprise me. Intel has always enjoyed paper launches. Besides, Intel has been screwing up their supply lately. First northbridges, now this. :lol: It's not a year with Intel if they don't screw something up. At least they recall what they can't otherwise fix. It may be a nuicance some times, but in the end you still get what you pay for, which is more than can be said for a number of other companies.

    Quote:
    By the way Silver, Though it may be M$s fault, I also haven't seen anything to prove that it isn't a fault with Intels design either. They have both screwed up in the past. We'll have to wait and see what the Linux tests show.
    I agree. There hasn't been anything to prove that there isn't a fault with Intel's design. Whether Linux, MacOS, whatever, someone really needs to verify that.

    You'll note though that even the single-proc system still suffered battery loss when it really shouldn't have. That doesn't bode well for it being a hardware problem, because that's a completely different platform, and what are the chances of the same bug being in two seperate designs? I mean yeah, there's still a chance, since they are related designs, but still, it's not much of a chance. Where as both platforms are using the same driver, a shared commonality.

    But even then, say it is Intel's hardware. That begs the next set of questions. If it is an Intel design problem, will a firmware update fix it? Will a driver update using a workaround fix it? And if it can't be fixed in the field, will Intel settle for anything less than recalling it if it is indeed their fault? Hell, even if it isn't their fault? Intel has recalled faulty 3rd party products that haven't been their fault in the past just because they had to protect their reputation.

    I don't know. It just cracks me up that so many people are getting so concerned over something with such a minimal impact. Oh, darn, you still have awesome top-of-the-line battery life on a system that performs unparalleled in the mobile world. And it's put out by a company that's well known for going the extra mile to ensure that at the end of the day their customers got the problem free product that they paid for, even if it means a costly recall. I just don't get it. What is there to be concerned about?
  34. Thats exactly why I started this thread in the first place. To give us something to talk about and debate that isn't Tech Support related.

    Besides, a good ole argueent is fun once in a while :lol:
  35. Quote:
    Most of us here know not to take Silver personally.
    He he he he he. Aww. You shouldn't have. :oops: I love you too. :mrgreen:

    But yeah, when you're right, you're right. Someone could really use taking their own advice. :D

    Hell, for that matter, I could use some downtime too. A nap would be nice. I've been fighting off a flu for a couple of days now. I really wish sick people would call in sick instead of coming in to work and giving it to everyone else. :roll: Of course I'm a complete hypocrite, coming in to work not feeling well myself. But then I got it here, so it's not like I'm sharing something new. :lol:

    So I readily admit that I might be a bit crankier than usual today. I have my moments. :twisted: But still, captainsniz is never going to last here if someone doesn't get him to stand up for himself. (Or herself? Do we even know snizzy's gender?) Sometimes you just gotta give a little tough love. :lol:
  36. Quote:
    Thats exactly why I started this thread in the first place. To give us something to talk about and debate that isn't Tech Support related.
    And don't think that I don't appreciate it. :mrgreen: This is an awesome thread.

    Quote:
    Besides, a good ole argueent is fun once in a while :lol:
    Darn tootin'. :lol: Especially when, at the end of the day, we can all laugh about it and have a beer. (Or whatever.)

    Plus I'm still of the opinion that making fact-based observations is not the same as attacking. There's a difference between insult and truth, you know? Granted tact might be another matter all together, but then I never claimed to be a tactful person. :twisted:
  37. Heh. Thats the truth.
  38. Quote:
    Heh. Thats the truth.
    Flatterer. :wink:
  39. Wow. Sounded like a pretty intereseting topic and turned into a discussion on whether somebody got flamed and why.

    More to the point, it is most likely both parties' fault, but also there are a couple of observations to be made.

    1) we all know that MS is an evil empire, let's face it, so I could easily see them know about the bug and not be overly concerned with it. But
    2) the fact that they've known for a while about it, and if it's just a registry fix, would indicate that it would have been likely they would have fixed it, 'cause really not much is involved, and
    3) the fact that there is no leak on other platforms could indicate that it is not all that simple.

    What amazes me the most is that Intel would rush a "big deal" product like that without addressing the issues. The only reason I can think of is that it was way scared of AMD increasing their market share. Then again, they should have been able to wait until the new architecture comes out to start the marketing push, since AMD does not appear (at least based on what has been released to the public) well prepared to counter it. And Intel still remains the leader in the mobil computing segment; Turions kind of disappoint.

    So was it some kind of commitment to Apple?!

    Then again, it would not be the first time Intel released a buggy chipset. What was that P4 chipset called a while back (3-4 years, was it?). Most mobo's were DOA, and I was one of those unlucky early adopters. They quickly released another chipset and forgot about the issue...
  40. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © Merriam-Webster, Inc.

    Main Entry: slander
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Anglo-French esclandre, from Old French escandle esclandre scandal, from Late Latin scandalum moral stumbling block, disgrace, from Greek skandalon, literally, snare, trap.


    ***Slander is not in the classic sense verbal. Also, this in a legal sense would not be considered libel because it is NOT PUBLISHED PRINT. Forums are not published print.


    Main Entry: li·bel
    Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
    a defamatory statement or representation in the form of printed words; specifically : a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt.

    ***I am an attorney, this definition holds and is accepted as the legal definition. Get your facts straight...biatch.
  41. Quote:
    Wow. Sounded like a pretty intereseting topic and turned into a discussion on whether somebody got flamed and why.
    We're good at that here. Topics rarely stay on topic the whole way through. :) But we usually get back to the original topic in the course of events.

    Quote:
    1) we all know that MS is an evil empire, let's face it, so I could easily see them know about the bug and not be overly concerned with it. But
    :lol: :lol: :lol: I hadn't even thought of that angle, but you're right. I can totally see M$ doing that. I can even see them whining about it and purposefully dragging their heels, like they did when they had to support x86-64.

    Quote:
    2) the fact that they've known for a while about it, and if it's just a registry fix, would indicate that it would have been likely they would have fixed it, 'cause really not much is involved, and
    Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe they figure that a registry change is something that doesn't even need a fix because anyone can go in and make that change. Maybe they figured that without a platform out there to support yet, there was no reason to make a fix. Or maybe they even have made the patch but are still testing it to make sure that it doesn't adversely affect other platforms. This is M$. They do take their sweet time on just about everything, especially patches.

    Quote:
    3) the fact that there is no leak on other platforms could indicate that it is not all that simple.
    Except that there is a leak on other platforms. The existing PM platforms showed a leak as well, just not nearly as pronounced.

    Quote:
    What amazes me the most is that Intel would rush a "big deal" product like that without addressing the issues.
    Unless they either knew that a software patch would fix it, or just don't consider it a big deal. Even with the loss of battery life, it's still top-notch battery performance that can't be beat. And there are no stability or performance problems to worry about. It's just battery life.

    Quote:
    So was it some kind of commitment to Apple?!
    That could very well be. Which is why it'd be nice to know if Apple's laptops are experiencing the same thing. That'd say for certain whether or not it was software.

    Quote:
    Then again, it would not be the first time Intel released a buggy chipset. What was that P4 chipset called a while back (3-4 years, was it?). Most mobo's were DOA, and I was one of those unlucky early adopters. They quickly released another chipset and forgot about the issue...
    Here I think you've got a lot of facts wrong. I believe that you're talking about the i820 chipset, which was a P3 chipset.

    But the chipset itself was not buggy. It worked perfectly fine ... for RDRAM. Which is what it was designed for. But to support SDRAM Intel added to the chipset a memory translator hub. That was where the problems came from, from that memory translator, not from the chipset.

    And even then, as far as I know, Intel's own motherboards hadn't had problems. It was only 3rd party motherboards that had problems with the memory translator hub. Even then, the actual problems were very few and far between. And the theory was, as far as I remember, that what had happened was that some of these 3rd party motherboard manufacturers hadn't followed Intel's reference design. They had put the memory even further away from the northbridge. And it was this little extra distance that caused some of the motherboards to fail.

    But Intel recalled every last motherboard. They offered replacements for anyone who returned their board. In exchange they either got their money returned, or they got an i820 board with the more expensive and better performing RDRAM, which had no problems because it had no memory translator hub.

    Granted, I'm pulling this all from memory. Anyone who has verifiable facts to correct me with, please feel free to do so.

    And if you're talking about some other chipset, please let me know, as I'm totally not aware of any others that have had any such history from Intel.
  42. See? Now you're getting your backbone. Bravo. Congrats.

    And, not having a law dictionary on hand to look that up, I'll have to take your word for it. You may very well be right that it's not libel because it isn't published print. I've never heard anyone make that distinction before, but then I don't hang out with lawyers. :lol:

    Either way though, it's still not slander because it's still the truth. So stick that up your tailpipe. :wink:

    Now, are you getting how this whole back and forth thing works?

    Quote:
    Get your facts straight...biatch.
    Admit it. That felt good, didn't it? :twisted:
  43. I stand corrected on the other issue, you are right, I do not think it was the chipset itself. Although I do not remember me not using the memory it was designed for (I had a rig running RDRAM for a while if you can believe that, and no it was not worth it), whatever the case was, but yes, it was not the main component. Still an Intel part, if I remember correctly. And yes, it was a third party mobo, but I did try several (I went to a local shop where they had the same mobo and bought ANOTHER one of those suckers. I remember being pretty pissed off.

    Regardless, I remember the recall, and you would agree it was kind of a fiasco. (and let's face it, reference mobo's have very little to offer to enthusiasts).

    And if I recall correctly, even if it was indeed post RDRAM then it was already when RDRAM was dead (which Intel tried to shove down our throats at prices that just did not make sense), so no I can not let them slide on that one.

    And last but not least, their arrogance in the past couple years with a failing [desktop] design is appaling, and I am not about to call you an Intel fan-boy, but I sense you are being protective of the giant.

    In general, it seems that it is always David and Goliath in the consumer hardware / software industry, and the Goliath always does everything to exploit its position (ordinarily acceptable and expected) to stall innovation (that's the part that is just disgusting)
  44. Link to Intel's current pdf outlining the 34 known errata (problems) and their plans to address these problems. Very interesting for those considering Core Duo...

    http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/30922201.pdf
  45. Oh yea......BIATCHES
  46. Quote:
    Still an Intel part, if I remember correctly.
    Yes, the MTH involved was an Intel part. The problem however was not with the part itself, but that some 3rd party motherboard manufacturers were putting the MTH on too long of a path. Had they followed Intel's instructions it wouldn't have been a problem. The part failed not through a flaw in the part itself, but in the failure to adhere to the specifications that the part required. Still, Intel recalled it anyway, because they had a reputation to uphold.

    Quote:
    Regardless, I remember the recall, and you would agree it was kind of a fiasco. (and let's face it, reference mobo's have very little to offer to enthusiasts).
    I don't argue with either point there. Though there were non-reference mobos that ran the MTH without flaw, because they at least followed the MTH's specs.

    The thing is, nearly everyone blames Intel for this failure, and almost no one realizes that it was actually just a handlful of 3rd party mobo manufacturers that weren't following the specifications that were actually the problem.

    Quote:
    And if I recall correctly, even if it was indeed post RDRAM then it was already when RDRAM was dead (which Intel tried to shove down our throats at prices that just did not make sense), so no I can not let them slide on that one.
    Actually, it wasn't when RDRAM was dead at all. It was at the very beginning of the use of RDRAM. That was the first motherboard to use RDRAM. So Intel giving a replacement mobo with RDRAM (that performed significantly better than the cheaper SDRAM version that had the problems) was a huge benefit. It was a free major upgrade. Well, free in cost anyway. Obviously frustration and downtime was the price to pay. True, RDRAM was more expensive, but Intel had nothing to do with that. And it did perform better than SDRAM. But this was also nearly six years ago now.

    Quote:
    And last but not least, their arrogance in the past couple years with a failing [desktop] design is appaling
    Failing? That's highly debatable. You'd have to be talking about the Prescott core specifically, as the Northwood (especially the NorthwoodC) was quite an excellent core, and gave AMD a lot to worry about.

    Yes, Prescott was hot. And yes, the performance of Prescott on a clock-for-clock basis was slightly lower than the NorthwoodC. Still, failing is a rather harsh judgement, as it did perform almost as well as a NorthwoodC of the same clock, and it did clock higher than a NorthwoodC. It performed adequately. Not great, not bad. Just adequately. And, in fact, the later models of the Prescott have improved on the heat output, even though no one wants to seriously report it.

    There are several things that I personally don't like about Prescott's design, most specifically the cache latency and the resimplification of the misprediction handling to always use the worst-case scenario. I'd hardly call it a failing design though. Compare it's performance to that of VIA's CPUs for example. Now there is a failure in nearly every way.

    Nor do I see it as arrogance to continue selling it, because obviously it's still making them quite a bit of money, and obviously it's still an adequate (just not impressive) design, so it's good business sense. We as enthusiasts might not want to buy one, but then we do have other choices. For most people out there, it does meet their needs. So how is that arrogance?

    Nor do I consider it appalling for the same reasons. Also because, in its own way, it has done a lot to promote AMD's excellent CPUs. Would AMD have the market share that they have today had Intel just shrunk the NorthwoodC core, fixed a couple minor things, added SSE3, and doubled the cache? No. It's only through Prescott's being just adequate that allowed the excellence of the hammers to shine.

    Sometimes I even almost think that Intel intentionally did this just so that AMD could gain market share and take Intel safely out of the monopolistic limelight. There was a time when people were about ready to slam on Intel for being a monopoly with the same zeal that they were attacking M$. But now a day you hardly hear anyone but the most rabid of fanboys spouting that level of fire and brimstone. Whether intentional or not, it has certainly given Intel a lot of breathing room again, and quite possibly averted a serious crisis. I wonder how much money it's saved them, and how much money they've lost from market share by comparison.

    Quote:
    I am not about to call you an Intel fan-boy, but I sense you are being protective of the giant.
    No, I'm being fair. There's a difference. When people have their facts wrong, and pass unfair judgement, I provide the correct facts. I'd do it equally for any company. It's only because most enthusiasts have a grudge against Intel and put AMD on some pedestal that I often end up defending wrongful accusations against Intel. Were the tables turned I would not hesitate to do the same for AMD. And, in fact, there have been many the occasion in which I have lauded AMD.

    I would turn that around though. Why have you not given Intel a balanced and fair examination? Why do you hold such a grudge against them?
  47. Quote:
    Link to Intel's current pdf outlining the 34 known errata (problems) and their plans to address these problems. Very interesting for those considering Core Duo...

    http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/30922201.pdf
    Looking at the errata for any processor is always a scary endeavor. :wink:
  48. Quote:
    One question. When do you receive your next Intel paycheck?


    Next week :D
  49. Heh heh. I wouldn't mind an extra paycheck. Maybe I should sell advertisement space in my avatar pixel by pixel on eBay.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Core Processors