More details emerge about Intel's Cougar Point chipset flaw

You're probably right in some ways because I feel like there's a culture of "We'll fix it with a software update later".

However, problems like these have always been there, but now they are produced on an even more massive scale, integrally affect our lives more than ever and publicized like never before. The level of effort gone into quality control probably hasn't gone down, but as things become more complex, QC probably hasn't increased accordingly.

We also have a problem with sensationalized media and the speed at which information moves these days (twitter, blogs and their ilk). Bugs like the iPhone's alarm clock not working after New Year's would have NEVER made the news 10 years ago. It's silly and non-consequential to the vast majority of the world.... but boy do we ever hear about it... and from multiple sources.. multiple times a day.

I remember a long string of much more serious issues from long ago ranging from the MTH bug on i820 boards (Pentium III... affected millions of computers around 2000) to massive recalls from manufacturers like Dell, HP and others due to bad caps, faulty batteries, defective GPUs and god knows what else (pick any year for the past 20 years). The IBM "DeathStar" incident (affected multiple brands, actually around 2003), RRODing Xboxes (circa 2006), data loss on Intel-based VIA chipsets (2002ish) during heavy PCI load and.... You get the picture.

You can go futher back in to the 90s and remember gems like the (infamous) Pentium FDIV bug (1995), Pentium III 600Mhz recall due to stability issues (1999), laughable amounts of battery/AC adapter recalls from all brands (all the time), various CRT recalls for catching on fire, tons of vehicle recalls (every year for decades) and much more, I'm sure.

But look at video games. Nowadays they're filled with bugs because they can just be patched up later. You could argue that games in the past were more simple, but Smash Bros Brawl for the wii is just as complex as a call of duty game. And it suffers from very few bugs, none of which disturb gameplay. In my opinion this is because games on the wii typically can't be updated.

I would think that communication and coordination between individuals, departments, and yes, computers, are issues that effect QC dramatically.

I think I read that it took about 130 employees to pump the yearly issue of, "Madden Football" out the door. Look how many it takes Intel to pump out a chipset.

Competition between makers also gas to effect QC. "We gotta get it to market before the other guy gets his to market", doesn't seem like a fertile ground to allow perfect QC to spring up.

As I understand it, the problem is peculiar to the Sandy Bridge controller only. Tinkering/tweaking with the controller during the redesign process ( from exclusive SATA 3Gb to SATA 3Gb + 6Gb).

I'm still at a loss to understand why Sandy Bridge owners are supposedly stampeding to get their boards returned. I've only put together two SB systems (one Asus, one Gigabyte) and as far as I can tell from contacting the support sites, neither company has yet organised a schedule for RMA since Chinese new year has effectively shut down most of Asia.
Common sense might indicate that only users who like the idea of RAID but are too tightwad to invest in a hardware RAID card are probably the only users who have the potential to be majorly inconvenienced. Judging by the hysteria you'd think that the chipset was in danger of combusting and emitting Plutonium in some kind of alchemical transmutation.
I think you can guarantee that RMA's will be handled in batches as revised chipset deliveries come on stream -hopefully RMA's take prescedence over pushing new revision boards into the channel, but I suspect that most vendors will allocate stock to fulfil both areas.

The main concern going forward would be that the dodgy chipset boards already in circulation don't magically find their way into the resellers market or less scrupulous retail/etail stores.

So, basically, early adopters are being victimized by their own impatience. Am, I correct in thinking these early glitches will be be attended to by the time most board revisions are released?

As far as I know the SATA issue is/was the only fly in the ointment. Sounds as if (given Intel's timeframe for controller revision) the transistor fault is already being rectified on chips at Intel's foundries- probably due to partially manufactured chips already in the process line having the revised metal layer(s) of the chip substituting for the faulty layers that would have been laid down.
The only sure thing at the moment is that the Z68 chipset boards ( onboard video out + overclocking friendly and the more eagerly awaited Rapid Storage Technology 10 for SSD's ) should be defect free when they launch in April(?).
As far as I'm aware the new revision boards should start appearing in a month or so. Made somewhat murkier no doubt by returned older (launch) revision 1.0 boards entering the channel after undergoing a swap de-soldering/re-soldering of storage controllers (and adding a valuble skill set for the younger initiates at Hon Hai no doubt).

To answer Captaincranky questions, yes and yes.

"Intel estimates that the failure rate over a 3-year system life would be about 5%, which is high enough for the company to stop shipments and work on a silicon fix."

It's always the risk you take as an early adopter of any electronic device.

Hence, the conversation about poor quality releases of various hardware products over the last couple of years.

I agree, there's a trend. Apple used to be known for products that were not "buggie", now that's not so much the case anymore.

I like the chicken and the egg paradigm....good analogy. I think it's fitting

And of course, the "we need to be first to market" statement's alway's been true.

is part of this problem of faulty hardware have anything to do with (besides complexity and process size) intentionally having each portion worked on blind from the rest of the project for patent/design reasons? so...you know...Rambus doesn't sue them or something

Gosh, do they still do that? I remember years ago on some news program, watching people decompile software, then handing the results to others to avoid possible infringement issues. I think the decompilers and their successors had to be "virgins", in the sense they had to have never seen the code before, have no idea what it was for, and on.

It was years and years ago, circa the IBM PC, which was being "cloned" and rebranded, or perhaps stolen if you will. The details are a bit fuzzy, after this length of time.

if nvidia would make chipset for "intel core i", then we would have an alternative ...

Thanks Intel for not allowing others to make chipsets for core i !!!
(sarcasm).

I just got an e-mail from Newegg saying I could return my motherboard for a full refund. I find that pointless as I would have to wait for however long it takes to fix the flaw. Does anybody know if they will still accept the return when they come out with the fix?

The real cost of sandy bridge has been revealed?

Intel claims that the recall of the 8 million sandy bridge processors (or MoBos?) will cost it $700M. The simple calculation is that, on average, the cost of each unit is ~$43 (700/8/2)! Is that the real cost of the "most advanced" computer chips on earth?

"Intel estimates that the failure rate over a 3-year system life would be about 5%, which is high enough for the company to stop shipments and work on a silicon fix."

5% of failure rate is too much for a computer system !

Thank Goodness AMD still exists.

It's an I/O hub not a CPU. The whole board usually costs less than the CPU that resides in the socket. The LGA1155 family of boards differs very little from the LGA1156.

You might also bear in mind that the $700m charge will likely also include the cost of shipping returns (from individuals as well as bulk consignment from OEM/etail/retail/regional support warehousing), freighting replacement boards, desoldering and resoldering costs, labour charges, repackaging where applicable.
The ~$40 cost of the PCH is Intel's wholesale pricing, not the manufacturing cost.

Probably why Intel initiated a recall

Mosu said:

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"


I think we caught that the first time around...when Princeton wrote it.

Ah, that's what happens when you try to translate the art(!) or mime to the (un)written word.

The biggest issue with the whole recall thing will be forced downtime on those systems already in use... Unless the vendors are willing to cross-ship a replacement board and have you send yours back, you have the disassembly, return shipping, waiting for new fixed board to arrive (however long that might take), reassembly and testing process. I can see why many would just forget about it and take their chances with the flawed products.