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 3

post #21 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...)
Actually, it would be very easy to discover the issue.

There are companies with thousands of desktops and run them for 3-5 years. The IT deptartments or the OEM would log failures and a pattern would be quite noticable given a large enough dataset.

Furthermore, there were enough returns and reports from manufacturers in the 1st month that Intel went to investigate. That means motherboard companies brought it up with Intel so companies outside of Intel knew something was up.

A 5-15% failure due to a specific issue would warrant a class action suit. During the pre-trial discovery phase, lawyers would gain access to Intel's internal documents and find out Intel knew about the issue.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 29
I never stated they would "create" the problem to do this,that is just stupid.The faulty chips created it-Intel then had to decide what to do.You can bet the chip manufacturer is paying for most of this recall btw.So the options then would have been hold off SB release for 2 more months,or release a product that would work fine for few months-then release the recall.Not out of the realm of possibilty,especially when you look at Intels prior business practices.
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 #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwoodz View Post
I never stated they would "create" the problem to do this,that is just stupid.The faulty chips created it-Intel then had to decide what to do.You can bet the chip manufacturer is paying for most of this recall btw.So the options then would have been hold off SB release for 2 more months,or release a product that would work fine for few months-then release the recall.Not out of the realm of possibilty,especially when you look at Intels prior business practices.
Intel is paying for all of this recall. In fact, they are giving their partners a bit more the necessary cost per chip replacement.

Intel did not know about the issue until days before the announcement. Detect of the flaw was hard since:
1) the original B1 stepping was unaffected
2) this flaw is detectable only via statistics


If they knew about it earlier, they would have stopped shipment earlier. This would save them replacement costs and given them more time to gain marketshare before AMD Bulldozer.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 29
I work for magicmicro.com and we've been doing this since Intel told us about the problem.

post #25 of 29
Yeah I know Intel is paying for it-but you can be sure they are getting some of that back from the chip manufacturer who supplied the faulty chip to Intel..I forget who it was.
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 #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwoodz View Post
Yeah I know Intel is paying for it-but you can be sure they are getting some of that back from the chip manufacturer who supplied the faulty chip to Intel..I forget who it was.

Huh? Cougar Point is manufacturer by Intel's own fab and not outsourced to TSMC.

Besides, it was an Intel design flaw with a single transistor used to clock the SATA 3Gb/s controller.


If Intel made all the ports SATA 6Gb/s, this probably would not have happened...
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehpexs View Post
Most companies would deny this and wait for a class action suit. Good on Intel.
They decided to take action as their bean counters likely calculated it was more cost effective to do the recall, than deal w/ the class-action lawsuit and loss of business over the years.

It was a good business decision, that was all.

Glad they did it, it was the right thing to do, but don't think for a second it was out of the kindness of their hearts.
Edited by DesertRat - 3/3/11 at 9:23am
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Huh? Cougar Point is manufacturer by Intel's own fab and not outsourced to TSMC.

Besides, it was an Intel design flaw with a single transistor used to clock the SATA 3Gb/s controller.


If Intel made all the ports SATA 6Gb/s, this probably would not have happened...
And it goes to bite them in the a..... i mean butt... for not supporting full Sata 6Gb/s in the first place... I can see the future of their usb 2.0 ports... lol next platform ivy bridge recalled due to a single transistor... lol causes usb 2.0 ports to blow out... USB 3.0 ports unaffected...
DARTH
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel 4770K Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H Diamond R9 290X Asus R9 290 Reference 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1866C9 Intel 320 Series SSD Seagate 1 Tb 7.2k WD Blue 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
2x Liteon 52x 32x 52x XSPC RASA 240RS kit XSPC RX480 v2 EK Full Cover R9 290X waterblocks 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 64bit Ultimate Dell P2715Q Ducky Zero DK2108 (Red Switches) Corsair RM1000 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Thermaltake Core x9 Micro$oft X5 Desk 
  hide details  
Reply
DARTH
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel 4770K Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H Diamond R9 290X Asus R9 290 Reference 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1866C9 Intel 320 Series SSD Seagate 1 Tb 7.2k WD Blue 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
2x Liteon 52x 32x 52x XSPC RASA 240RS kit XSPC RX480 v2 EK Full Cover R9 290X waterblocks 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 64bit Ultimate Dell P2715Q Ducky Zero DK2108 (Red Switches) Corsair RM1000 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Thermaltake Core x9 Micro$oft X5 Desk 
  hide details  
Reply
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehpexs View Post
Most companies would deny this and wait for a class action suit. Good on Intel.
Yea, if this was the financial sector, no company would of ever admitted to wrong doing and offered to reimburse customers over a mistake. Tech companies are some of the least corrupt companies.
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