Intel Corp. may postpone the actual release of its quad-core microprocessors produced using 45nm process technology due to an undisclosed defect and the fact that both Intel and its partners have a lot of central processing units (CPUs) with four processing engines made using 65nm tech in stock. It is unclear whether the delay will affect the world’s largest x86 chipmaker financially.
Initially Intel planned to roll-out its code-named Wolfdale and Yorkfield microprocessors that are projected to be marketed under Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme brand-names on the 10th of January, 2008. But the plans have changed and, according to a news-story at HKEPC web-site, Intel will only be able to release dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo 8000-series (Wolfdale) processors in February, while Intel Core 2 Quad 9000-series (Yorkfield) will only see the light of the day in February or March.
The media report claims that Intel has discovered a “slight processor system bus defect” in its quad-core processors code-named Yorkfield
View: The full story @ X-Bit Labs
Initially Intel planned to roll-out its code-named Wolfdale and Yorkfield microprocessors that are projected to be marketed under Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme brand-names on the 10th of January, 2008. But the plans have changed and, according to a news-story at HKEPC web-site, Intel will only be able to release dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo 8000-series (Wolfdale) processors in February, while Intel Core 2 Quad 9000-series (Yorkfield) will only see the light of the day in February or March.
The media report claims that Intel has discovered a “slight processor system bus defect” in its quad-core processors code-named Yorkfield
View: The full story @ X-Bit Labs
Yes, I am referring to the Quads, not the Duos, because the Duo has a method of talking to the a second core directly, but the quads are just 2 Duos packaged together, meaning that each "pair" can talk to each other fine, but if all four cores communicate, chaos ensues on the bus lane and northbridge.
SEE, PEOPLE....!!! THIS is why we still badly need AMD.. to keep intel on their toes, without AMD, Intel would still be flogginbg us the SOS next year.. at inflated prices.
If, perish the thought, AMD does go on the decline, I truly hope Samsung buys them out.
That would bring the competition to epic proportions.
If, perish the thought, AMD does go on the decline, I truly hope Samsung buys them out.
That would bring the competition to epic proportions.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry589033815
SEE, PEOPLE....!!! THIS is why we still badly need AMD.. to keep intel on their toes, without AMD, Intel would still be flogginbg us the SOS next year.. at inflated prices.
I am more inclined to say that people need Intel, as before the Core 2 Duos debuted, AMD was not lowering the prices of their processors but raising them.
Intel has not delayed the introduction of its next generation microarchitecture 2, Nehalem. Since AMD is not competing them, they decided to take some time to fix errata that would have went unfixed at the original launch date. There is nothing wrong with that.
SEE, PEOPLE....!!! THIS is why we still badly need AMD.. to keep intel on their toes, without AMD, Intel would still be flogginbg us the SOS next year.. at inflated prices.
I am more inclined to say that people need Intel, as before the Core 2 Duos debuted, AMD was not lowering the prices of their processors but raising them.
Intel has not delayed the introduction of its next generation microarchitecture 2, Nehalem. Since AMD is not competing them, they decided to take some time to fix errata that would have went unfixed at the original launch date. There is nothing wrong with that.
Nehalem is "supposed" to be on time. Intel is pushing back the new quads... what makes you think they're not going to push back Nehalem.
It's hard being the monopoly.
AMD, get your act together. Purchased 3 AMDs so far, but I'm seriously considering going with Intel for my next purchase though.
I was going to say just the same - they probably called it themselves because they need AMD in the game, otherwise they inevitable become a monopoly. "slight processor system bus defect" my arse
-Spenser
This is likely a serious defect (data corruption) resulting from heavy and unprecedented traffic between the north bridge. Intel's chipset division is a distinctly separate entity and even in the best cases, there's alot of room for misinterpretation of specs. Usually if the defect can be worked around with a register config (BIOS) change, Intel would ship with the errata. This one probably has no such fix, so they are forced to spin the silicon.
Keep in mind that this could be a corner case defect that affects a very small % of applications. But, Intel sells to a huge audience and probably can't afford the bad press and backlash from scientific, military & government users.
In the world of computar delays, that hardly even counts as one! (PS: Why is this comment #5 :-p )
Worse, neither Conroe or Kentsfield are under any sort of performance or even pricing pressure from the X2 or Phenom processor families, and Intel *still* has to empty out those inventories before even *thinking* about mainstreaming Wolfdale, let alone Yorkfield.
If Intel absolutely wanted to do in AMD at this point, all it has to do is position Kentsfield as a Conroe-killer. (In short, push quad-core *now*.) However, destroying AMD would cause more problems for Intel than it would solve. And that doesn't include governmental investigation that would surely ensue (even though, amazingly, Intel's hands are completely clean) and fines (not because Intel did anything wrong; however, the pressure would very much be on to appear to be *doing something* to rein in a monopolistic-by-default Intel).
Realistically, look how much of the market they hold right now. If it shifts a few more percentile in their favor, we won't have an AMD any longer... nobody wants that...
True, who knows, maybe VIA will buy them out, they have the manufacturing facilities and capital to use AMD IP to compete in the CPU market again.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.