Yorkfiled delayed

[Zenoth]

Hey guys,

I'm sorry if that's been discussed before ...

I found that in a French article, look at the second news from the top of the page, titled: "Les Yorkfield retardés (confirmé)"

Translation: The Yorkfields delayed (confirmed)

http://www.hardware.fr/html/news/?date=05-12-2007#9264

Basically, it says the following ...

Even though the Wolfdale version (Dual Core) will indeed be released in mid January, the Yorkfields on the other hand have been delayed due to a bug that apparently made the test systems over at Intel's laboratories simply crash. It was found during a recent validation procedure. It is a bug found in very rare cases, but Intel has decided they had to delay them all (except the recently released Extreme edition, more on that below) to fix the potential (existing, but rare) bug.

Strangely, the QX9650 has been released (as we know of course) and should be affected by the bug. However the Xeon models are supposedly not affected at all. The important thing to take into consideration is that the author of the article updated it later on and wrote: l'information vient de nous être confirmée officiellement par Intel., which means that the information has been confirmed by Intel themselves. The delay is of a two months period (approximately), pushing the release to around late February or early in March. I wanted to point at it if it wasn't mentioned in another thread. If there's another thread about it please ignore.

Thanks.

 

[taltamir]

amd gets a lucky break?

 

[KingstonU]

Does this really matter? Intel really could just sit back and just enjoy record profits and not release anything better until 2009.

No competition = bad

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'll throw this in, as an armchair student of propaganda.

Look at the facts.

There's nothing wrong with the QX9650.

There were severe questions over the last month about compatibility with nVidia 680i chipsets, while Wolfdale is certified for those boards. (Very strange, since both Conroe and Kentsfield work just fine.)

People all over the place were slamming nVidia, threatening "class action" suits and other remedies, since the board makers had promised and advertised "45nm ready."

Intel is a dominant firm in an industry with few competitors in this market. It is known that at one time, Federal Trade Commission had an eye on them for producing the same Pentium II, such that the end of the production line involved disabling a 400 Mhz speed to allow for 300 and 320. This would have been -- hell, it WAS!! -- "price discrimination." They capture big profits that way, leaving the public thinking that they've been done a favor. This assembly-line approach actually encouraged production of counterfeit P2-400's in the Phillipines.

Intel had had trouble with nVidia per alignments, offers to buy, etc., and AMD successfully bought ATI (confirm, but I think it's true.)

I suggest there's a possibility that they're backtracking on a hardware feature implemented as a policy of inter-corporate spite.

The fact that the QX9650 "worked" with non-680i boards, would be consistent with my hypthesis.

We like our Intel processors, but that doesn't mean that they can't be PR**KS, too.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: taltamir
amd gets a lucky break?

So it seems, huh?

 

[SexyK]

No confirmation from any news site we know is legit? I'll wait for confirmation before passing judgment on this one.

 

[AmberClad]

Same here, I'll wait for confirmation from a credible source. The story just seems a bit coincidental and suspicious timing-wise.

 

[AlabamaCajun]

That article was from May speaking of the delay from Q307 to Q407. Sorry, old news.

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: AlabamaCajun
That article was from May speaking of the delay from Q307 to Q407. Sorry, old news.

The article date is in European notation (day-month-year).

 

[VirtualLarry]

I guess this proves that Intel is no better than AMD, when it comes to show-stopper bugs in their new processors.

I sincerely hope that this bug isn't due to some "secret sauce" that Intel added to intentionally make their new Yorkfield chips incompatible with 680i. OTOH, maybe that would be a good thing, and convince Intel never to try that again.

 

[AlabamaCajun]

Oops! Darn, I was eyeing a 9550 or 9450 for Feb, that means Spring.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I speculate about a lot of things of this nature, but my speculations have predictive value. We can't introduce "politics" into this forum, but since 1999, I was quickly becoming a veritable Criswell, and my clairvoyance was only born out time after time through the last eight years.

In "purely competitive markets," producer-sellers aren't supposed to "know each other" well. A situation of many buyers and many sellers assures anonymity. So in these situations of "industrial concentration," Intel knows that its major rival is AMD; ATI and nVidia know that they're the only ones of significance competing for market share. When there are "movements of alignment," issues of licensing (as with nVidia-SLI and Intel), AMD buying ATI, Intel's failure to buy nVidia -- I can see where there might be manipulative design features calculated to leave a particular company out in the cold.

But in this sort of market, it may be short-sighted to do those things. The computer industry has always counted on cooperative integration, for the same reason that there are standard expansion-bus designs, standard memory specifications, etc. It works also that way with Microsoft in the software industry. One of the earlier anti-trust suits during the mainframe days occurred over IBM designing I/O connections and devices to lock out other manufacturers, and of course, DOJ's Anti-Trust Division pursued it, and after many (many!) years, IBM lost. The same thing had happened more recently with Microsoft -- also over "many years" -- two different issues, and an unfolding saga most recently with decisions coming from the European Union.

So -- let's hope that when they "fix the bug in Yorkfield," they also fix the 680i compatibility issue -- proclaimed in the news to be some miracle due to other factors.

 

[Gikaseixas]

if true it won't affect intel that much given the lead they have. Like someone said, yeah def a break for AMD if true.

 

[SexyK]

Getting close to 24 hours since OP and not even a whiff of this story on dailytech or any other credible site... looking like false information at this point.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: SexyK
Getting close to 24 hours since OP and not even a whiff of this story on dailytech or any other credible site... looking like false information at this point.

Actually, it is being reported elsewhere.

edit: Of course, it's only being reported that hardware.fr reported it.

 

[Butterbean]

Just last week Intel said a lot of this stuff was rumors:

" Intel Says Nuts To Reports Of 45-Nm Penryn Delays"


The Digitimes story that's attracting attention today speculates that Intel sees no imminent competitive threat from AMD. The story draw from this the conclusion that Intel doesn't want to cannibalize its current top-of-the-line 65nm parts, and so it's delaying the launch of three desktop 45-nm Penryns from January until February or March.

This all sounds plausible enough so that it prompted me to go straight to Intel to get a yea or a nay out of them. Prefacing his comments with the caveat that Intel normally doesn't comment on such speculative stories, a spokesman at the chip giant e-mailed me back: "We?ve been public since November that we plan to introduce a host of new mobile and desktop processors based on our 45 nm and reinvented transistors in Q1, and there are no changes to that plan."



http://www.informationweek.com...NN2JVN?queryText=intel

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Just last week Intel said a lot of this stuff was rumors:

" Intel Says Nuts To Reports Of 45-Nm Penryn Delays"


The Digitimes story that's attracting attention today speculates that Intel sees no imminent competitive threat from AMD. The story draw from this the conclusion that Intel doesn't want to cannibalize its current top-of-the-line 65nm parts, and so it's delaying the launch of three desktop 45-nm Penryns from January until February or March.

This all sounds plausible enough so that it prompted me to go straight to Intel to get a yea or a nay out of them. Prefacing his comments with the caveat that Intel normally doesn't comment on such speculative stories, a spokesman at the chip giant e-mailed me back: "We?ve been public since November that we plan to introduce a host of new mobile and desktop processors based on our 45 nm and reinvented transistors in Q1, and there are no changes to that plan."



http://www.informationweek.com...NN2JVN?queryText=intel

You do know that Q1 includes March/April right?

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Just last week Intel said a lot of this stuff was rumors:

" Intel Says Nuts To Reports Of 45-Nm Penryn Delays"


The Digitimes story that's attracting attention today speculates that Intel sees no imminent competitive threat from AMD. The story draw from this the conclusion that Intel doesn't want to cannibalize its current top-of-the-line 65nm parts, and so it's delaying the launch of three desktop 45-nm Penryns from January until February or March.

This all sounds plausible enough so that it prompted me to go straight to Intel to get a yea or a nay out of them. Prefacing his comments with the caveat that Intel normally doesn't comment on such speculative stories, a spokesman at the chip giant e-mailed me back: "We?ve been public since November that we plan to introduce a host of new mobile and desktop processors based on our 45 nm and reinvented transistors in Q1, and there are no changes to that plan."



http://www.informationweek.com...NN2JVN?queryText=intel

You do know that Q1 includes March/April right?

yeah thats what sucks about it

 

[PlasmaBomb]

http://xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/d...e_Microprocessors.html

It's a while back, but they still have it as a featured article.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Just last week Intel said a lot of this stuff was rumors:

" Intel Says Nuts To Reports Of 45-Nm Penryn Delays"


The Digitimes story that's attracting attention today speculates that Intel sees no imminent competitive threat from AMD. The story draw from this the conclusion that Intel doesn't want to cannibalize its current top-of-the-line 65nm parts, and so it's delaying the launch of three desktop 45-nm Penryns from January until February or March.

This all sounds plausible enough so that it prompted me to go straight to Intel to get a yea or a nay out of them. Prefacing his comments with the caveat that Intel normally doesn't comment on such speculative stories, a spokesman at the chip giant e-mailed me back: "We?ve been public since November that we plan to introduce a host of new mobile and desktop processors based on our 45 nm and reinvented transistors in Q1, and there are no changes to that plan."



http://www.informationweek.com...NN2JVN?queryText=intel

You do know that Q1 includes March/April right?

yeah thats what sucks about it

I find it funny to think that folks just expect Intel's "release in Q1" to mean it will be early in Q1 (and we are dissapointed if we find out it will be late in Q1) while when we hear AMD say "release in Q1" we just assume that means late in Q1 (if we are lucky) and most likely means late in Q2...

 

[Dadofamunky]

Meh... I want a 45nm dual-core anyway. Quad-core is so far ahead of the software support that getting them is a matter of bragging rights more than anything else. I don't want the extra heat from two processor cores that I will probably never use with the current generation of software. If Wolfdale doesn't come out until March I'll just get an e6750 to tide me over. That'll still be a huge upgrade.