Intel Screw-Up: Part Duex

[Stick_e_Mouse]

<A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/30247.html" target="_new">Intel suspends shipments of 800MHz FSB Pentium 4 Spotted bug at the eleventh hour.</A>

And you thought Intel would have learned something from their PIII 1ghz bug! LOL.

Note: I do not hate Intel nor am I an AMD biatch. I just think this is funny, especially after Tom's and other sites just reviewed Canterwood!

Disregard my previous post.
<font color=blue>
Men don't use Viagra because they're impotent, but because some women are just butt-ugly.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sTiCk_E_mOuSe on 04/14/03 10:08 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[dhlucke]

Yup. So now we get ANOTHER paper launch until they get things right.

<font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS</font color=blue> <font color=red>AMERICA</font color=red>

 

[atarione]

well it's better that they caught it then put it out, and then a "b" revision in 1x month like another company I can think of might have done .. cough (via) cough.

oh well kinda tragic for them that they didn't figure that out until they already had the review units out thought, that was not smart...

<begin> clever sig </end>

 

[TKH]

Like my old granma said, "Good thing deserved to be waited patiently..."
The rival of this batch of CPU is only (hopefully) available in September. Intel still has time to fix it, but not too long though.

You never know how stupid you are until you have done something stupid enough for you to realize it.
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=22996" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[sabbath1]

Wonder how Intels supposed to fix the bug via a BIOS update? I've never seen a CPU Bios being updated
Obviously it's possible, but how is it done?

 

[vk2amv]

They did the same thing with he P3 1.13Gighz. Tried to fix the problem with bios updated instead of fixing the real problem. I see another 1.13gighz P3 incident with the 200Mhz FSB P4`s here. They tried to fix the 1.13 with just bios updates and it massively backfired on them and now they are trying the same thing with the P4. It is almost guaranteed to backfire on intel.
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'

 

[Twitch]

It's way premature to make any presumptions about the effect of the bug without even knowing the nature of the bug. Has anyone been able to isolate it in independent testing? From what I've read, the bug is extremely minor, would affect a very small number of users, and can be fixed with a BIOS update that works around the problem. To me, the simple fact that Intel got burned with the 1.13 P4 tends to preclude the notion that they would do something similar here. Because of that, I tend to believe them when they say the bug is minor with a simple work-around. We'll see, I guess.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't take showers. :tongue:

 

[RCPilot]

Well, let me ask you this. Would you like to be the one holding a flawed CPU that a BIOS update didn't fix? Not me, but that's me. I'd wait & see what is really up here myself.

If it ain't broke, take it apart & see why not!

 

[Twitch]

Of course I wouldn't be happy if that happened. Thing is, without knowing the nature of the bug, it's impossible to really speculate how intrusive it would be.

All I'm saying is that I doubt Intel would have the gonads to repeat the P4 1.13 fiasco, which makes me think the bug is overblown. I could be wrong, since I'm speculating as much as anyone.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't take showers. :tongue:

 

[RCPilot]

It's a coin toss if you ask me. On the other hand I'd hate to bo one of those that got hosed before. A couple of months will tell & I'll wait & see. Hope it goes the way you want for sure.

If it ain't broke, take it apart & see why not!

 

[slvr_phoenix]

On the other hand I'd hate to bo one of those that got hosed before.

Except that those who 'got hosed' before still had the option to return the CPU for their money back, for a P3 1GHz plus the price difference, or for a working P3 1.13GHz later (when it was finally fixed in hardware). The only people who got stuck with a bad processor were those who refused to send it back.

<font color=blue><pre>I'm proud to be an American,
who served my country in the US Air Force,
to protect the rights of my fellow Americans,
to hold protests against others like me.</pre><p></font color=blue>

 

[vacs]

Problem is solved and the 800MHz FSB P4s are shipping again.

I don't see any problem with this, as long as companies in fact care to stop a CPU release because they found a problem and do no try to hide it, it's alright with me

 

[RCPilot]

Except that those who 'got hosed' before still had the option to return the CPU for their money back, for a P3 1GHz plus the price difference, or for a working P3 1.13GHz later (when it was finally fixed in hardware).

I hate to be in that situation myself though. Doesn't sound like fun when your trying to build a machine & get things going. That's all I meant.

If it ain't broke, take it apart & see why not!

 

[soulprovider]

The bug with the 1.13Ghz PIII was to do with the cores architecture being maxed out speed wise - It just wouldn't run any faster and the release was probably pushed my Intels marketing team who just had to have something out there that looked as good as an Athlon.

Hence the release of the Tualatin PIII which must have cost more money to develop than what they ever made selling it but at the end of the day it wiped some of the egg off their face. Yeah, they told us the PIII could match the Athlon T Bird clock for clock and thats just what they did with the 1.4GHZ model.............eventually.

This new P4 bug is something completely different as the P4 is designed for 4Ghz. But maybe, just maybe, the reason the chip didn't get released was because they're not playing catch up with AMD?

<b>Vorsprung durch Dontwerk</b>.....<i>as they say at VIA</i>