Mar 24 2011, 11:39 AM
while the early revival of the p67 is a welcome affair
and to think that the original plan for mid march delivery to manufacturer
early april for any B3 rev to pop up,
but in reality the whole schedule was bumped u by nearly a month does give me some reservations
Being in the manufacturing line for almost 10 years shown me that there is no such thing called total lost
Way have been found to minimised the effects of a recall
For me even a straight to the face admittance to error could also mask a way to recuperate whatever can be recuperated.
I am not saying that the current B3 batch is defective in anyway
but as it been known, the previous stepping have issue to sata 2 as explained by anandtech
QUOTE
The problem in the chipset was traced back to a transistor in the 3Gbps PLL clocking tree. The aforementioned transistor has a very thin gate oxide, which allows you to turn it on with a very low voltage. Unfortunately in this case Intel biased the transistor with too high of a voltage, resulting in higher than expected leakage current. Depending on the physical characteristics of the transistor the leakage current here can increase over time which can ultimately result in this failure on the 3Gbps ports. The fact that the 3Gbps and 6Gbps circuits have their own independent clocking trees is what ensures that this problem is limited to only ports 2 - 5 off the controller.
You can coax the problem out earlier by testing the PCH at increased voltage and temperature levels. By increasing one or both of these values you can simulate load over time and that’s how the problem was initially discovered. Intel believes that any current issues users have with SATA performance/compatibility/reliability are likely unrelated to the hardware bug.
One fix for this type of a problem would be to scale down the voltage applied across the problematic transistor. In this case there’s a much simpler option. The source of the problem is actually not even a key part of the 6-series chipset design, it’s remnant of an earlier design that’s no longer needed. In our Sandy Bridge review I pointed out the fair amount of design reuse that was done in creating the 6-series chipset. The solution Intel has devised is to simply remove voltage to the transistor. The chip is functionally no different, but by permanently disabling the transistor the problem will never arise.
You can coax the problem out earlier by testing the PCH at increased voltage and temperature levels. By increasing one or both of these values you can simulate load over time and that’s how the problem was initially discovered. Intel believes that any current issues users have with SATA performance/compatibility/reliability are likely unrelated to the hardware bug.
One fix for this type of a problem would be to scale down the voltage applied across the problematic transistor. In this case there’s a much simpler option. The source of the problem is actually not even a key part of the 6-series chipset design, it’s remnant of an earlier design that’s no longer needed. In our Sandy Bridge review I pointed out the fair amount of design reuse that was done in creating the 6-series chipset. The solution Intel has devised is to simply remove voltage to the transistor. The chip is functionally no different, but by permanently disabling the transistor the problem will never arise.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/the-sou...-point-sata-bug
Being a microscale product, to me this means the variance might be small, but the effect is major
So if there is a way to detect the leakage, perhaps
or some way to detect the flaw.
And if this flaw have some variance to them, that means some "might" be salvageable.
But why the recall? To me, this is a proper manufacturer procedure if the flaw is substantially high in quantity to affect them. By doing so they can control' "if" the old rev chip that have a higher pass rate to be use again
This will help the manufacturer to get back online faster, by further binning the good ones from the bad' of the old rev chipset
If indeed this is the case, then the possibility of one or two slipping past to motherboard manufacturing could happen
Whatever Intel will do to the recovered chips, no one know
Is there any co. Auditing them on this issue?
Quote
0.0563sec
0.24
7 queries
GZIP Disabled