Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB (FE) review
Intel Haswell to arrive in low volume until USB 3.0 issue is fixed
Intel will slowdown the ramp of its new Haswell platform until it has fixed a USB 3.0 issue in the Haswell platform that causes some relatively minor issues when a system wakes from S3 sleep mode with devices connected through USB 3.0. Haswell is expected to hit the market in June, but volume will reportedly be "cautiously low" until Intel rolls out a new revision that fixes the USB 3.0 problem.
“Haswell for desktop (Denlow platform) looks set to launch with cautious volume in June using the faulty C1 stepping, and then to see a stronger ramp once the glitch is worked out. Still, this is more than we had hoped for in June. Caution in Ivy Bridge units still likely to constrain gross margin for Intel and contacts point to August as the more significant launch period,” said JoAnne Feeney, an analyst with Longbow Research, in a note to clients, reports Tech Trader Daily.
Earlier this month it was reported that Intel began to inform its partners that when a PC system with Core i-series “Haswell” and 8-series chipset inside wakes from S3 sleep mode, it experiences issues with devices connected through USB 3.0. Intel seemingly defines the issue only as a nuisance for end users, as there would be no serious unpleasant consequences, such as data loss. A quick fix for the problem, which may result in blank PDF pages or failure to resume playback, is already known: a restart of applications. In order to solve the issues with USB 3.0, a new chipset revision is required.
Intel halts their own branded motherboards - 01/23/2013 10:04 AM
Intel indicated that ovre the next three years they will stop manufacturing their own branded motherboards. Well, they actually purchase them from big ODM's themselves but yeah that production will ...
Base clock overclocking to make its return with Intel Haswell? - 01/15/2013 10:11 AM
German website hardCOREware speculates base clock overclocking (BClk) may return with the introduction of Intel's Haswell processor later this year. Base clock overclocking was severely limited with ...
More Intel Haswell processor model numbers surface - 12/31/2012 02:59 PM
The guys and gals at Arctic cooling must have a had a whoops moment as they accidentally leaked a bunch of processor model numbers of Intel's upcoming Haswell-based LGA1150 processors. The list belo...
Launch Of Intel Haswell Reportedly Delayed Till June - 12/28/2012 10:21 AM
More Haswell news today. ‘Haswell’ is the name of Intel’s next-generation processors as you guys know by now. Last week we already we reported some of the key details of...
Intel Haswell to Include Integrated Voltage Regulator - 12/28/2012 10:18 AM
Intel Corp.’s next-generation code-named Haswell microprocessors will feature a secret weapon: integrated voltage regulator module (VRM). The latter will allow to improve granularity of powe...
Dragondale13
Senior Member
Posts: 1513
Joined: 2012-10-04
Senior Member
Posts: 1513
Joined: 2012-10-04
#4554161 Posted on: 03/15/2013 04:27 PM
Minor issue, I'm holding out cuz I wanna see NUMBERS, NUMBERS!!!! I LIKE NUMBERS!!!!
Minor issue, I'm holding out cuz I wanna see NUMBERS, NUMBERS!!!! I LIKE NUMBERS!!!!
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7432
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7432
Joined: 2012-11-10
#4554163 Posted on: 03/15/2013 04:31 PM
Based on the way you're wording that, fault is a relative, maybe even opinionated term. For example, the Phenom II x6 can sometimes outperform an 8-core FX processor, where you could consider the FX to be at fault when really it just isn't optimized for that particular task; the FX isn't worse than the Phenom. In a situation like this, a more suitable word would be deficient or regression.
So, perhaps what you meant to say is every chip ever sold has deficiencies/regressions, because it is simply un-realistic to have 1 chip be good at everything.
If you really do mean that every chip has had a fault, what were the fault(s) of Sandy Bridge or Core 2 Duo or Athlon II? I'm not saying those didn't have faults, but I simply haven't heard of any. And by faults I mean in ways the chip was intended to be used, so faults in overclocking don't count.
I hate to break it to you guys but every single processor ever made has some form of errata. I mean yeah this is more serious obviously, but if you think they haven't' sold you "faulty" chips in the past you're sorely mistaken.
Based on the way you're wording that, fault is a relative, maybe even opinionated term. For example, the Phenom II x6 can sometimes outperform an 8-core FX processor, where you could consider the FX to be at fault when really it just isn't optimized for that particular task; the FX isn't worse than the Phenom. In a situation like this, a more suitable word would be deficient or regression.
So, perhaps what you meant to say is every chip ever sold has deficiencies/regressions, because it is simply un-realistic to have 1 chip be good at everything.
If you really do mean that every chip has had a fault, what were the fault(s) of Sandy Bridge or Core 2 Duo or Athlon II? I'm not saying those didn't have faults, but I simply haven't heard of any. And by faults I mean in ways the chip was intended to be used, so faults in overclocking don't count.
Ghosty
Senior Member
Posts: 7383
Joined: 2003-07-23
Senior Member
Posts: 7383
Joined: 2003-07-23
#4554185 Posted on: 03/15/2013 04:55 PM
Will the Haswell CPU's work with existing X79 chipsets?
Will the Haswell CPU's work with existing X79 chipsets?
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 14091
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 14091
Joined: 2004-05-16
#4554186 Posted on: 03/15/2013 04:57 PM
Based on the way you're wording that, fault is a relative, maybe even opinionated term. For example, the Phenom II x6 can sometimes outperform an 8-core FX processor, where you could consider the FX to be at fault when really it just isn't optimized for that particular task; the FX isn't worse than the Phenom. In a situation like this, a more suitable word would be deficient or regression.
So, perhaps what you meant to say is every chip ever sold has deficiencies/regressions, because it is simply un-realistic to have 1 chip be good at everything.
If you really do mean that every chip has had a fault, what were the fault(s) of Sandy Bridge or Core 2 Duo or Athlon II? I'm not saying those didn't have faults, but I simply haven't heard of any. And by faults I mean in ways the chip was intended to be used, so faults in overclocking don't count.
I'm not talking about performance characteristics, I'm talking about processor errata. Intel documents it on the release of every stepping. Certain programming functions will literally be broken on certain processors. For instance Intel had a TLB bug in it's MMU on Core 2 which would cause hardlock ups of the processor when performing certain operations.
Here is an example of the documentation that Intel releases for programming around errata:
http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/31407918.pdf
If you scroll down to page 40 you can see the list of all the problems and workarounds for them.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2477/2
Anandtech did its own write up on the AMD version of the TLB errata.
Most of these problems aren't seen by end users because developers are aware and make changes in order to fix, or they are fixable via bios/microcode updates. This USB3 problem I guess is more significant and cannot be fixed via these methods but by a new stepping. But to pretend like processors never have problems and Intel is just now selling a faulty chip is nonsense.
Based on the way you're wording that, fault is a relative, maybe even opinionated term. For example, the Phenom II x6 can sometimes outperform an 8-core FX processor, where you could consider the FX to be at fault when really it just isn't optimized for that particular task; the FX isn't worse than the Phenom. In a situation like this, a more suitable word would be deficient or regression.
So, perhaps what you meant to say is every chip ever sold has deficiencies/regressions, because it is simply un-realistic to have 1 chip be good at everything.
If you really do mean that every chip has had a fault, what were the fault(s) of Sandy Bridge or Core 2 Duo or Athlon II? I'm not saying those didn't have faults, but I simply haven't heard of any. And by faults I mean in ways the chip was intended to be used, so faults in overclocking don't count.
I'm not talking about performance characteristics, I'm talking about processor errata. Intel documents it on the release of every stepping. Certain programming functions will literally be broken on certain processors. For instance Intel had a TLB bug in it's MMU on Core 2 which would cause hardlock ups of the processor when performing certain operations.
Here is an example of the documentation that Intel releases for programming around errata:
http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/31407918.pdf
If you scroll down to page 40 you can see the list of all the problems and workarounds for them.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2477/2
Anandtech did its own write up on the AMD version of the TLB errata.
Most of these problems aren't seen by end users because developers are aware and make changes in order to fix, or they are fixable via bios/microcode updates. This USB3 problem I guess is more significant and cannot be fixed via these methods but by a new stepping. But to pretend like processors never have problems and Intel is just now selling a faulty chip is nonsense.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 17911
Joined: 2012-05-18
Im going to get it anyway, i dont use usb3 and hardly put cpu to sleep so its not a big deal for me.