SANTA CLARA, Calif., Jan. 31, 2011 - As part of ongoing quality assurance, Intel Corporation has discovered a design issue in a recently released support chip, the Intel® 6 Series, code-named Cougar Point, and has implemented a silicon fix. In some cases, the Serial-ATA (SATA) ports within the chipsets may degrade over time, potentially impacting the performance or functionality of SATA-linked devices such as hard disk drives and DVD-drives. The chipset is utilized in PCs with Intel's latest Second Generation Intel Core processors, code-named Sandy Bridge. Intel has stopped shipment of the affected support chip from its factories. Intel has corrected the design issue, and has begun manufacturing a new version of the support chip which will resolve the issue. The Sandy Bridge microprocessor is unaffected and no other products are affected by this issue.


The company expects to begin delivering the updated version of the chipset to customers in late February and expects full volume recovery in April. Intel stands behind its products and is committed to product quality. For computer makers and other Intel customers that have bought potentially affected chipsets or systems, Intel will work with its OEM partners to accept the return of the affected chipsets, and plans to support modifications or replacements needed on motherboards or systems. The systems with the affected support chips have only been shipping since January 9th and the company believes that relatively few consumers are impacted by this issue. The only systems sold to an end customer potentially impacted are Second Generation Core i5 and Core i7 quad core based systems. Intel believes that consumers can continue to use their systems with confidence, while working with their computer manufacturer for a permanent solution. For further information consumers should contact Intel at www.intel.com on the support page or contact their OEM manufacturer.


For the first quarter of 2011, Intel expects this issue to reduce revenue by approximately $300 million as the company discontinues production of the current version of the chipset and begins manufacturing the new version. Full-year revenue is not expected to be materially affected by the issue. Total cost to repair and replace affected materials and systems in the market is estimated to be $700 million. Since this issue affected some of the chipset units shipped and produced in the fourth quarter of 2010, the company will take a charge against cost of goods sold, which is expected to reduce the fourth quarter gross margin percentage by approximately 4 percentage points from the previously reported 67.5 percent. The company will also take a charge in the first quarter of 2011which will lower the previously communicated gross margin percentage by 2 percentage points and the full-year gross margin percentage by one percentage point.

This news is kind of welcome for me, since it stops my 'Sandy Bridge itch', at least for a while.

EDIT: I'll wait to see what kind of solutions will be available. Knowing that only the four 3Gbps ports are affected isn't horrible. Plus the eSata port on my motherboard is controlled by Marvell.

I know this is not exactly helpful, but one of the things that popped into my mind when every other topic here became about people's new Sandy Bridge builds, was how "careless" (for lack of a better word) I thought it was to jump on new tech so quickly.

There are two elements to this in my mind.

1. It's great and all to be cautious and wait to tech to mature but in many cases, particularly where failures are due to in-the-field wear-and-tear, if it weren't for the early adopters doing the beta-testing then the cautious late adopters would be the early adopters doing the beta-testing! It might be great for you personally to know that someone else has ironed out the bugs by taking the pain of the failure, but if everyone had that mindset no-one would ever buy anything. The in-the-field testing would never happen and the problems never be found.

2. In this case, which looks like a problem with design and in-house life testing, I find it quite difficult to believe that Intel only found out about this yesterday. Sandy Bridge launched three weeks ago. Intel seem to have already gone a long way down the route to identifying the problem at the transistor level, designing a fix, getting the board to authorize a large pot of cash to pay for recalls, got OEMs on board... and so on. So basically what I'm getting at here is that I'd lay money that at least someone at Intel knew about this problem before SB launched. From that perspective, yeah I can see that waiting is a good thing to do

However I disagree with 2. If Intel knew about this PRE release they would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars on shipping alone. Read Anand's article about it, you might appreciate the fact that the cost of repair and labor is minor compared to the cost of shipping the parts back to OEMs and back to customers.

According to Anand's report they have first learned about the problem a few days ago and have been testing to find the exact cause. I'm not saying its not possible but its highly unlikely IMO.

Well, maybe. Time will tell, as I doubt the lawyer community will be able to restrain itself from launching a class-action lawsuit alleging similar things to my random musings

Note that I'm not suggesting they knew about it months ago, merely that they may have found out about it shortly before launch.

...if it weren't for the early adopters doing the beta-testing then the cautious late adopters would be the early adopters doing the beta-testing!

WTF? Since when are customers who buy product at retail considered to be "beta-testers"?

A beta-test is conducted prior to general product release with a controlled list of customers/users, all of whom sign waivers that they understand the pitfalls of using the beta-test products.

WTF? Since when are customers who buy product at retail considered to be "beta-testers"?

A beta-test is conducted prior to general product release with a controlled list of customers/users, all of whom sign waivers that they understand the pitfalls of using the beta-test products.

WTF? Since when are customers who buy product at retail considered to be "beta-testers"?

A beta-test is conducted prior to general product release with a controlled list of customers/users, all of whom sign waivers that they understand the pitfalls of using the beta-test products.

Calm down! I know exactly what a beta-tester is.

I used the term euphemistically in the context of replying to the sentiment in the post I replied to - that it's better to wait a bit for tech to mature after it comes on the market. That process of maturation involves what...? Bugs and problems being found in the field that weren't found in earlier testing?