Sandy Bridge Bug 2X Costly as Pentium Math Bug
Intel's surprising note that it has discovered a "circuit design issue" in the 6-series chipset is reminiscent of the 1993 FDIV bug. Intel's quality control may not be as fail-safe as the company claims.
The FDIV bug was a catastrophic design flaw in the original Pentium (P5) processor that caused certain floating point divisions to produce false results. It was a rather controversial problem and extremely rare as only one in 9 billion operations was believed to be affected by the flaw, but Intel was forced to recall and correct the issue. The company initially expected the cost to be in the neighborhood of $300 million, but ended up paying about $475 million in total.
We don't know much about the Sandy Bridge SATA bug announced today, other than the chipset could see its SATA connection deteriorate and cause the performance of SATA devices such as hard drives decline. Intel says not many consumers are affected and it has already begun manufacturing new Sandy Bridge devices. However, the company expects the issue to cost about $700 million, which isn't exactly a number for a minor issue. Semiconductor companies are traditionally conservative with their estimates how much such issues could cost in the end and there is a good chance that the SB problem will cost Intel nearly twice as much as the 1993 FDIV bug.
We should note that Intel has an elaborate structure of quality control in place: there are more than 3000 engineers worldwide who are testing new chip designs usually for at least 9 months before a chip is commercially released. This structure has been created following the FDIV bug specifically to avoid scenarios such as the announced Sandy Bridge circuit design "issue." With a $700 million bill and the stock market fallout still to be seen, Intel may be looking into ways on how to improve its quality control system -- especially since the company is trying to figure how to make its way into other high-volume markets such as mobile phones and consumer electronics.
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.
- Intel Identifies Cougar Point Chipset Error, Halts Shipments
- Intel Identifies Cougar Point Chipset Error, Halts Shipments
- Microsoft May Bring Office to the App Store
- Microsoft Has Sold 300 Million Windows 7 Licences
- Egyptian Government Orders ISPs to Switch Off
- Microsoft Pressing Intel for 16-Core Atom
- QuakeCon 2011 in August, Says Bethesda
- ano-Tech Used in Color-Changing Laptop
- Hot Apps of 2011 Week #4
- ARM Launches Cortex-R Processors
- StarTech Dock Hosts up to 4 External Drives
- Homefront PC Features Revealed, Shows LAN
- The Hidden Cost Of Intel's $700 Million SB Recall
- The Hidden Cost Of Intel's $700 Million SB Recall
- Online Retailer 'Deactivates' Sandy Bridge CPUs
- PCs to Get PlayStion Move via 'Move Server'
- Egypt Shuts Down the Last ISP Standing, Noor
- Google Exec Wael Ghonim Goes Missing in Egypt
AMD can grin as much as they like. But I'll still be buying intel. Why? They're better, it's that simple
No disrespect silverm, but I think the argument "Intel is better than AMD", is too simple. For instance look at the THG's best gaming CPU recommendations..month after month AMD hardware has dominated the limelight due to its value, performance, reliability and system longevity.
And what if everyone bought Intel? Do you think we'd see such innovative products as the latest Sandy Bridge, and at these prices? I doubt it.
I have run both Intel and AMD hardware, mostly the latter. I also built AMD systems because most of the clients wouldn't pay the extra for Intel systems, nor where they prepared to keep changing sockets and memory, or put up with Intel GMA graphics. I had few if any complaints with AMD. The money saved went towards better-quality memory and PSU.
As for this current debacle. Hmm, I think it's been largely nipped in the bud, and will be overshadowed by positive customer feedback once consumers see what a nice little bit of silicon Sandy Bridge is.
I suppose I could also jump on a bandwagon in response to all those Intel patrons who still..even to this day..make sweeping remarks about AMD hardare, such as "AMD chips blow up", or "AMD chips die after two years". I could say well, since AMD hardware is generally used longer (ref: sockets and motherboard chipsets), then it gives board manufacturers more time to optimize performance and stability. But what's the point?
Use what you choose..Intel..AMD..it will have a limited life-span the moment you take it out the box. Tomorrow you might be buying AMD, considering the rate at which this technology is progressing
i think he is actually talking about speed
amd is the cheap little hatchback and intel is a sportscar
there is no competition between them, one is more powerfull but at a cost
But the point is, in a city the hatchback is more efficent and pratical than a sports car. Just like AMD and Intel.
"there are more than 3000 engineers worldwide who are testing new chip designs usually for at least 9 months before a chip is commercially released."
now that's a job i could do !
Intel produces the hatchback too
Cheap attempt to get consumers to buy SATA 6Gbps devices.
You people have short memories. AMD were the performance king at one time you know.
You people have short memories. AMD were the performance king at one time you know.
only for gaming - when it comes to real application grunt, AMD have never been king.
I build systems for people using both Intel and AMD, and I have had the chance to test them - not just naff benchmark scores - and as someone who does a lot of multimedia work and photo manipulation, as well as play a few games (when I get time), I will always go for an Intel chip. AMD does have its place if you are building a gaming rig that will do the occasional bit of web surfing - but it will NEVER out perform Intel on other disciplines
only for gaming - when it comes to real application grunt, AMD have never been king.
Cast your mind back to when AMD introduced multiple cores and 64-bit technology whilst intel's P4 was getting hotter than hades and still couldn't keep up. Mysteriously they made an enormous leap forwards in technology with the core architecture, I wonder whether the R&D breakthrough might have had something to do with the billions of dollars that they received from the US government for the company's other product range: weapons guidance systems. No doubt the losses from the sand bridge bug will be a tiny bump in the road compared to the governmental subsidies and purchases going on in the arms trade.