Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [CRN]Builder says SB Recall Helped Business
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[CRN]Builder says SB Recall Helped Business - Page 2

post #11 of 29
Yeah they did this to save themselves a huge lawsuit, the vendors would have been pissed. Now they all love intel cause they just made millions of dollars since intel took the blame for the mistake. Now they can refurb the boards with the right controller and sell them as open box for PURE profit.
post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjminer View Post
You think Intel was not obligated to cover the costs of their manufacturing defect? Their portion of the work was performed in error, so they were on the hook for replacing/repairing them, or they'd be hit with massive lawsuits totalling more than the cost of being proactive, plus take a hit to their reputation/endanger existing contracts with manufacturers.

The same goes for them being "proactive." They didn't do it by choice, they did it because motherboards with these controllers are widely used, and the problem would be discovered by someone eventually. In the likely event someone further examined the performance variance of affected boards and discovered the flaw was due to Intel's design/process (and didn't just dismiss it as random variance), and if someone sued them as a result, the cost would be well beyond the price of a recall (plus potential fraud charges against individuals), they'd be forced by a court to perform a recall/compensate purchasers, and, again, they'd take a hit to their reputation/endanger existing contracts with manufacturers.

Intel is one of the most business-oriented businesses on the planet because they are so large and a single mistake in handling a problem can cost them billions more than the solution they should have enacted. If you think every action they take isn't preceded by a cost-analysis of every predictable alternative with every viable factor taken into account, you are wrong.

The great irony is their analysis for this recall likely revealed that some people would be foolish enough to think they did this out of the goodness of their hearts.
In 3 year 5-15% would start to fail. (as in the performance would go down and may start corrupting data; not a complete fail) So even if someone checked their HDD/SSD speed every so often, it would most likely be considered an aging HDD/SSD and not a chipset failure. And I'm pretty sure most of the people here who have had a system for 3+ years dont regularly use it to benchmark let alone check storage speeds. Plus like I said earlier, they'd have to find out where the issue is coming from.. So odds are if Intel swept this under the floor, no one would've figured it out.
Even if they did, they could just pull an Nvidia (see laptop gpu's) and offer up replacements 3 years down the line for a cheaper cost. (which I doubt many people even know about or took advantage of...)
post #13 of 29
well we all know that alot of ppl had corruptions on the sata 2 ports, so for them to make the change and pay for it was a good idea. Makes me feel better to by intel compared to amd. like 4850 i had they said nothing was wrong with it i contacted ati and for a refund. the dam card was bad. Then the had a fw update to correct the problem but never admitted it. Like amds phonom I chips. So intell did a smart thing. easy to say.
Dyslexia
(16 items)
 
  
Reply
Dyslexia
(16 items)
 
  
Reply
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by s-x View Post
In 3 year 5-15% would start to fail. (as in the performance would go down and may start corrupting data; not a complete fail) So even if someone checked their HDD/SSD speed every so often, it would most likely be considered an aging HDD/SSD and not a chipset failure. And I'm pretty sure most of the people here who have had a system for 3+ years dont regularly use it to benchmark let alone check storage speeds. Plus like I said earlier, they'd have to find out where the issue is coming from.. So odds are if Intel swept this under the floor, no one would've figured it out.
Even if they did, they could just pull an Nvidia (see laptop gpu's) and offer up replacements 3 years down the line for a cheaper cost. (which I doubt many people even know about or took advantage of...)
Sorry, you're still completely wrong on every level.

I'm not going to bother wasting my time with another lengthy response because it seems wasted on your ignorance, but here's the cliffnotes to what I would have written:

1. The majority of people use desktops for over 3 years and would find the common denominator between performance degredation and file corruption
2. The majority of businesses use desktops for over 3 years and would find the common denominator between performance degradation and file corruption
3. Due to the above two points, the issue would be figured out
4. After the issues were discovered, a lawsuit would be filed against Intel forcing them to disclose their discovery of the issue
5. This is different than the NVIDIA issue because NVIDIA didn't have knowledge of the problems; they found out about it based on a massive amount of product failures
6. Intel would have to pay a substantially higher amount for their knowledge of the issue and failure to honor their agreements with customers and/or manufacturers
7. Intel would lose a great deal of future business from lack of consumer trust, manufacturers pushing for better deals due to their inability to trust Intel, and companies considering AMD offerings because they lost money from downtime due to Intel's failure to handle the issue
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6300 @ 2.56ghz ASUS P5B Deluxe Wi-Fi/AP X850XT 2gb Crucial 10th Anniversary @4-4-4-12/? 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x Seagate 7200.10 320gb Lite-On 165H6S, NEC ND-3550 1. Vista Ultimate 64-bit, 2. Windows XP Pro/SP2 Samsung SyncMaster 914v 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Standard OCZ GameXStream 700w Logitech Area 51 (Black) Microsoft Habu 
Mouse Pad
Who uses these wtf? 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6300 @ 2.56ghz ASUS P5B Deluxe Wi-Fi/AP X850XT 2gb Crucial 10th Anniversary @4-4-4-12/? 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x Seagate 7200.10 320gb Lite-On 165H6S, NEC ND-3550 1. Vista Ultimate 64-bit, 2. Windows XP Pro/SP2 Samsung SyncMaster 914v 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Standard OCZ GameXStream 700w Logitech Area 51 (Black) Microsoft Habu 
Mouse Pad
Who uses these wtf? 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 29
^

... and they would STILL have to replace the boards... a whole lot more of them.
post #16 of 29
Ok, I take it back then. You guys took the meaning of selfless way too literally.
Gaming Rig
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k, 4.6GHz, 1.304v ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen3 2x Sapphire HD7970 OC with Boost, 1150 MHz/1550... 2x4GB DDR3 1600 Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 840 Pro Samsung 750GB HD753LJ Samsung F3 ASUS 24X DVD Combo Drive 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua DH14 Windows 8 Professional x64 Crossover 27Q 27" IPS LED, 2560x1440 Logitech G11 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX750 Cooler Master HAF932 Logitech G500 Custom 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty 2x Dayton B652 Bookshelf Dayton DTA-100A Amplifier Dayton 12" SUB-1200 Subwoofer 
  hide details  
Reply
Gaming Rig
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k, 4.6GHz, 1.304v ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen3 2x Sapphire HD7970 OC with Boost, 1150 MHz/1550... 2x4GB DDR3 1600 Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 840 Pro Samsung 750GB HD753LJ Samsung F3 ASUS 24X DVD Combo Drive 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua DH14 Windows 8 Professional x64 Crossover 27Q 27" IPS LED, 2560x1440 Logitech G11 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX750 Cooler Master HAF932 Logitech G500 Custom 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty 2x Dayton B652 Bookshelf Dayton DTA-100A Amplifier Dayton 12" SUB-1200 Subwoofer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Pyros View Post
I feel the recall shows that Intel does what they have to do to correct their problem without giving their customers a hard time. It cost them over $1 billion to recall due to their selfless act of covering all the manufacturers' expenses of reproducing all their boards.
Intel had no other choice but to act swiftly and professionally. The risk of bad publicity was too great.
Shhhhh!
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 930 Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R XFX 5870 1GB 6GB G.SKILL PI 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
120GB OCZ Vertex 2, 2x Hitachi 2TB (7K2000) Pioneer Blu-ray BDR-205BKS, Samsung SH-S243N Windows 7 Ultimate x64/WinXP Pro SP3 Samsung P2570 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Elite Keyboard Corsair 850HX Lian-Li PC-B70 Logitech MX510 
Mouse Pad
Gel 
  hide details  
Reply
Shhhhh!
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 930 Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R XFX 5870 1GB 6GB G.SKILL PI 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
120GB OCZ Vertex 2, 2x Hitachi 2TB (7K2000) Pioneer Blu-ray BDR-205BKS, Samsung SH-S243N Windows 7 Ultimate x64/WinXP Pro SP3 Samsung P2570 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Elite Keyboard Corsair 850HX Lian-Li PC-B70 Logitech MX510 
Mouse Pad
Gel 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 29
Call me a skeptic-but I have seen no proof that Intel did not know about this ahead of SB release.I wouldn't put it past them to rush the release to get everybody onboard-then do the "recall" to make them look like the Golden Child.Might not be true,but I am no fool either.If they did know about it(which with all the testing they do),seems kind of funny they "found" the problem shortly after release.Imagine if SB released the same time as Bulldozer and Bulldozer beat it out.They would lose massive amounts of money.By being several months early with a bad product-they get a crap-load of customers locked into their system.Just a thought....
Amelia
(13 items)
 
Professional
(13 items)
 
RCPC#1
(17 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1100t MSI 890FX GD65 MSI Radeon HD5670 GSkill RipjawsX DDR3 PC3 12800 2x4GB CL8 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD Black 1TB SATA III Samsung BD Zalman 9900MAX Windows 7 64 Professional 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
AOC 22" LED Logitech Kingwin Lazer Platinum 500w Fractal Design R3 
Other
Samsung 470 SSD 128GB 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X6 960T Asus M4A88T-VEVO Asus Strix R7 370 SuperTalent Perfomance 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
GSkill Snipers Monster Daytona Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7,200 RPM 16Mb cache Memorex DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H60 Windows 8N IBM 9494 19" LCD IBM 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair GS500 In Win H-Frame Wolfking OCZ Behemoth 
Audio
JBL Creature 
  hide details  
Reply
Amelia
(13 items)
 
Professional
(13 items)
 
RCPC#1
(17 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1100t MSI 890FX GD65 MSI Radeon HD5670 GSkill RipjawsX DDR3 PC3 12800 2x4GB CL8 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD Black 1TB SATA III Samsung BD Zalman 9900MAX Windows 7 64 Professional 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
AOC 22" LED Logitech Kingwin Lazer Platinum 500w Fractal Design R3 
Other
Samsung 470 SSD 128GB 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X6 960T Asus M4A88T-VEVO Asus Strix R7 370 SuperTalent Perfomance 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
GSkill Snipers Monster Daytona Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7,200 RPM 16Mb cache Memorex DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H60 Windows 8N IBM 9494 19" LCD IBM 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair GS500 In Win H-Frame Wolfking OCZ Behemoth 
Audio
JBL Creature 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwoodz View Post
Call me a skeptic-but I have seen no proof that Intel did not know about this ahead of SB release.I wouldn't put it past them to rush the release to get everybody onboard-then do the "recall" to make them look like the Golden Child.Might not be true,but I am no fool either.If they did know about it(which with all the testing they do),seems kind of funny they "found" the problem shortly after release.Imagine if SB released the same time as Bulldozer and Bulldozer beat it out.They would lose massive amounts of money.By being several months early with a bad product-they get a crap-load of customers locked into their system.Just a thought....
I'm sorry, but you are being foolish if you really think a company would create a problem that will cost $1 billion to rectify, on purpose. That's utterly SILLY. You're seeing conspiracies everywhere.

"seen no proof Intel did not.." You can't prove a negative, so if that's what you're waiting for, you're going to be waiting a long time.

Intel had no choice but to fix the problem for several reasons: First and foremost: OEMs like Dell and HP would refuse to carry Sandy Bridge in desktops for home and business use. This would lead to questions, rumors, and tons of lost sales. Once home users discovered the problem or the secret got out, there would be lawsuits to follow.
Edited by pursuinginsanity - 3/3/11 at 7:33am
Why upgrade?
(14 items)
 
Why overclock?!
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 760 ASUS 55i Sabertooth EVGA 960 4GB 8gb 1600mhz Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
120gb Intel 320 (OS) 500gb Samsung 850 Evo Win 7 64 Viewsonic VX2250-Wm 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic G 550w Gold Lancool PC-K9B Logitech G5 X-Fi Titanium/AT-H700 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4690k Asus Z97 Sabertooth mk2 EVGA 970 8gb Kingston 1833mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
128GB Samsung 830 500GB Samsung 840 Evo allota fans but quiet! Win 7 64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2311H Rev. A01 Mechanical w/ Cherry Blues NZXT Hale 650w NZXT Phantom - white 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Anker CG100 Steelseries 9HD Sennheiser HD555 
  hide details  
Reply
Why upgrade?
(14 items)
 
Why overclock?!
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 760 ASUS 55i Sabertooth EVGA 960 4GB 8gb 1600mhz Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
120gb Intel 320 (OS) 500gb Samsung 850 Evo Win 7 64 Viewsonic VX2250-Wm 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic G 550w Gold Lancool PC-K9B Logitech G5 X-Fi Titanium/AT-H700 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4690k Asus Z97 Sabertooth mk2 EVGA 970 8gb Kingston 1833mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
128GB Samsung 830 500GB Samsung 840 Evo allota fans but quiet! Win 7 64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2311H Rev. A01 Mechanical w/ Cherry Blues NZXT Hale 650w NZXT Phantom - white 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Anker CG100 Steelseries 9HD Sennheiser HD555 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by s-x View Post
In 3 year 5-15% would start to fail. (as in the performance would go down and may start corrupting data; not a complete fail) So even if someone checked their HDD/SSD speed every so often, it would most likely be considered an aging HDD/SSD and not a chipset failure. And I'm pretty sure most of the people here who have had a system for 3+ years dont regularly use it to benchmark let alone check storage speeds. Plus like I said earlier, they'd have to find out where the issue is coming from.. So odds are if Intel swept this under the floor, no one would've figured it out.
Even if they did, they could just pull an Nvidia (see laptop gpu's) and offer up replacements 3 years down the line for a cheaper cost. (which I doubt many people even know about or took advantage of...)
So you support corrupt business practices? Hiding knowledge of a potential problem is not something that the consumers or the company would want. The company's reputation will only be damaged as the consumers suffer from their actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwoodz View Post
Call me a skeptic-but I have seen no proof that Intel did not know about this ahead of SB release.I wouldn't put it past them to rush the release to get everybody onboard-then do the "recall" to make them look like the Golden Child.Might not be true,but I am no fool either.If they did know about it(which with all the testing they do),seems kind of funny they "found" the problem shortly after release.Imagine if SB released the same time as Bulldozer and Bulldozer beat it out.They would lose massive amounts of money.By being several months early with a bad product-they get a crap-load of customers locked into their system.Just a thought....
The chipset problem hurt them more both in reputation and financially than if they just got it right the first time. To risk the loss of a whole product line and all of your customers for some stunt for attention is beyond stupid. Any company who does this on purpose deserves to be bankrupt.
Lil Burninator
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K ASUS Gryphon CF R9 290Xs Samsung 4x4GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 1TB 2x 240s | 360 | MPC35X | Mostly BP W7 Pre x64 XL2720T 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
K70 AX1200 CaseLabs S5 + Ped G700/Mamba 
Mouse PadAudio
Vespula WA7 + KRK RP6s + HD650s 
  hide details  
Reply
Lil Burninator
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K ASUS Gryphon CF R9 290Xs Samsung 4x4GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 1TB 2x 240s | 360 | MPC35X | Mostly BP W7 Pre x64 XL2720T 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
K70 AX1200 CaseLabs S5 + Ped G700/Mamba 
Mouse PadAudio
Vespula WA7 + KRK RP6s + HD650s 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [CRN]Builder says SB Recall Helped Business