Intels very own Errata

[debello_64]

Intel Explains 45nm Delays, Errata

Intel engineers blame simulation for quad-core "showstopper"

More than a few people noticed Intel's roadmap originally slated 45nm Penryn desktop quad-core processors for January, only to have the company change the hard launch date to a not-so-firm "Q1 2008." So what happened? In a series of interviews with Intel, the tale of quad-core Penryn began to unfold.

Intel engineers, speaking on background, detailed the problem. "Intel is very sensitive to mean time to failures. During a simulation, at high clock frequencies, we noticed an increase of potential failures after a designated amount of time."

He continues, "This is not acceptable for our customers that require longterm stability. It's a showstopper."

Taiwanese media was quick to pin the simulated problem on complacency and lack of competition from AMD. Intel employees quickly denied the allegation, with the additional claim that the report was "humorous."

 

[FrgMstr]

Do you believe everything everyone tells you? Is Intel going to come out an say, "Yeah we are sandbagging it." I was told last year that Penryn yeilds were some of the best they have ever had.

I seem to remember Intel launching a 1.13GHz part that would note even compile a Linux kernel so the story does not jive with past behavior. Surely, maybe things have changed since then. And also, there is no pressure on Intel to put out a fast part, especially one that may return an error. God knows they just say AMD take it in the ass product line wide over something that would not even worry any of their desktop users....

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzUsLCxyZXZpZXdz

I am not trying to make Intel the bad guy here, but the only thing DailyTech is good at is leaking information they get handed to by others and reprinting trash they steal from overseas.

 

[BillParrish]

"Errata" used in the context of microprocessors are "bugs", deivations from expected proper computational operation. Was is described is not "Eratta" but instead falls under the classification of unsupported rumor.


Here is an example of proper Eratta.
http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/31327922.pdf

Edit:
And if it were to be true, I would be thrilled that marketing finally took a back seat to engineering "getting it right" before dumping it on the public. /sigh well I can dream cant I ?

 

[NoxTek]

You probably miss working with Thomas Pabst hehe

Oh SNAP... lol

 

[InorganicMatter]

At least they are properly delaying the part and not shoving it out the door like nothings wrong.