Intel says flaw in Series 6 Sandy Bridge chipsets

[Diogenes2]

Officially announce the issue.

So, everyone but Asus, has done this ?


Maybe if my MOBO doesn't find out about this, it won't know it's broke ...

 

[Engineer]

No, everyone bus Asus hasn't done anything yet. Biostar hasn't said anything that I can find.

 

[ahurtt]

Here's an interesting tidbit from page 15 of the Intel 6 Series Specification Update (the Errata section) document dated January 2011:

10. SATA Signal Voltage Level Violation
Problem: SATA transmit buffers hav e been designed to maximi ze performance and robustness
over a variety of routing scenarios. As a result, the SATA transmit signaling voltage
levels may exceed the maximum motherboard TX connector and device RX connector
voltage specifications as defined in section 7.2.1 of the Serial ATA specification, rev 3.0.
This issue applies to Gen 1 (1.5 Gb/s) and Gen 2 (3.0 Gb/s).
Implication: None known.
Workaround: None.
Status: No Plan to Fix

Full document here: http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/specupdate/324646.pdf
Think it's the same thing? If so, note how it says no known implications? Status, no plan to fix? Guess they'll be updating that now won't they?

 

[Minjin]

Here's an interesting tidbit from page 15 of the Intel 6 Series Specification Update (the Errata section) document dated January 2011:

10. SATA Signal Voltage Level Violation
Problem: SATA transmit buffers hav e been designed to maximi ze performance and robustness
over a variety of routing scenarios. As a result, the SATA transmit signaling voltage
levels may exceed the maximum motherboard TX connector and device RX connector
voltage specifications as defined in section 7.2.1 of the Serial ATA specification, rev 3.0.
This issue applies to Gen 1 (1.5 Gb/s) and Gen 2 (3.0 Gb/s).
Implication: None known.
Workaround: None.
Status: No Plan to Fix

Full document here: http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/specupdate/324646.pdf
Think it's the same thing? If so, note how it says no known implications? Status, no plan to fix? Guess they'll be updating that now won't they?

No, I don't think it's the same thing. What they are doing is using higher voltage to improve signal integrity. They probably did some testing and determined that the connectors have specs that are a little conservative and can be pushed a bit higher. Don't use the cheapest SATA cable you can find and it probably won't be an issue.

 

[ahurtt]

No, I don't think it's the same thing. What they are doing is using higher voltage to improve signal integrity. They probably did some testing and determined that the connectors have specs that are a little conservative and can be pushed a bit higher. Don't use the cheapest SATA cable you can find and it probably won't be an issue.

But have you read this article which explains the source of the bug?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/the-source-of-intels-cougar-point-sata-bug

From the article:
"The problem in the chipset was traced back to a transistor in the 3Gbps PLL clocking tree. The aforementioned transistor has a very thin gate oxide, which allows you to turn it on with a very low voltage. Unfortunately in this case Intel biased the transistor with too high of a voltage, resulting in higher than expected leakage current. Depending on the physical characteristics of the transistor the leakage current here can increase over time which can ultimately result in this failure on the 3Gbps ports. The fact that the 3Gbps and 6Gbps circuits have their own independent clocking trees is what ensures that this problem is limited to only ports 2 - 5 off the controller."

And to make matters worse...their fix is going to be to simply turn off the voltage to the affected transistor because it isn't needed anyway. It's a vestigial remnant from a prior design. Still think it's unrelated? Seems fishy to me.

 

[Diogenes2]

I agree the errata report sounds like the exact problem we are looking at ..

.... Don't use the cheapest SATA cable you can find and it probably won't be an issue.

I really don't think that will be a fix ...

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

my question is did it actually happen to anyone? you only see recalls after a couple of thousand complaining customers with the same issues

 

[Minjin]

But have you read this article which explains the source of the bug?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/the-source-of-intels-cougar-point-sata-bug

From the article:
"The problem in the chipset was traced back to a transistor in the 3Gbps PLL clocking tree. The aforementioned transistor has a very thin gate oxide, which allows you to turn it on with a very low voltage. Unfortunately in this case Intel biased the transistor with too high of a voltage, resulting in higher than expected leakage current. Depending on the physical characteristics of the transistor the leakage current here can increase over time which can ultimately result in this failure on the 3Gbps ports. The fact that the 3Gbps and 6Gbps circuits have their own independent clocking trees is what ensures that this problem is limited to only ports 2 - 5 off the controller."

And to make matters worse...their fix is going to be to simply turn off the voltage to the affected transistor because it isn't needed anyway. It's a vestigial remnant from a prior design. Still think it's unrelated? Seems fishy to me.

Yes, I've read it and your clocking tree has nothing to do with the voltage in your SATA connectors. It has to do with the timing of the signals.

I agree the errata report sounds like the exact problem we are looking at ..

I really don't think that will be a fix ...

It sounds like the exact same problem because it has the words "voltage" and "SATA" in it? Again, I don't think it has anything to do with the problem in the recall.

Could there be a relation? It's possible but I really don't think so.

 

[dighn]

my question is did it actually happen to anyone? you only see recalls after a couple of thousand complaining customers with the same issues

Intel is being proactive about this. They must run accelerated aging tests and found the issue, but the chipset is too new for it to become a wide-spread problem in the field.

 

[Diogenes2]

Yes, I've read it and your clocking tree has nothing to do with the voltage in your SATA connectors. It has to do with the timing of the signals.


It sounds like the exact same problem because it has the words "voltage" and "SATA" in it? Again, I don't think it has anything to do with the problem in the recall.

Could there be a relation? It's possible but I really don't think so.

Having re-read the errata info, I agree with you..

On a lighter note, since the note said :

"...SATA transmit signaling voltage levels may exceed the maximum motherboard TX connector and device RX connector voltage specifications ... "

.... a cheap cable might mitigate this problem..

 

[Diogenes2]

ooops..

 

[Vinwiesel]

Intel is saying that too high of a voltage is being applied to the gate of the transistor causing too high of a leakage current for it to function. This doesn't sound like it will cause a catastrophic failure of the chip to me. More likely, the leakage current will leave the transistor biased (in the "on" state) at all times, or intermittently at times when it should be "off".

If so, and there is no risk of a total chipset failure, why not offer a rebate option to owners of the affected chipsets? Rather than go through the whole RMA headache, and receiving a degraded reworked board, just give us a rebate of $85. (the estimated rework cost).

With a p8p67 Pro I have 2 6gb intel, 2 6gb marvel, and 2 esata ( I assume these are safe since they are on the JMicron® JMB362 SATA controller), but the point is I can get by just fine without the recall. A rebate would go a long way towards restoring my faith in Intel. A painful RMA hassle will not.

 

[Diogenes2]

Interesting idea, but unlikely to happen ...
Intel's biggest customers are OEM's and they need reliable boards to sell.

 

[eddietandy]

Just got an email from Newegg about this, sorry for the length so I only included the part that matters:

...
As always, Newegg remains 100% committed to our customers' total satisfaction. In keeping with our commitment to our customers, we are extending the return period for your motherboard by 90 days or until replacements become available from the manufacturer, whichever is greater. Intel expects to have a new revision of the P67 & H67 chipsets out around April, at which point first-run motherboards with this issue will need to be physically replaced in affected systems.

From a technical standpoint, the design issue can be bypassed fairly simply by not using the Serial ATA (SATA) ports that are affected. Your motherboard’s manual should identify your SATA ports by number, and at a minimum you should see ports 0-5 (6 ports in total) listed. Ports 0 and 1 are Sata Rev. III (6Gbps), and do not appear to be affected by this problem. Ports 2-5 are SATA Rev. II (3Gbps) and should not be used. For a thorough explanation of this hardware work-around, please refer to our video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJcE2alQPvY

If you choose to use the hardware work-around option, there is no need to contact us at this time. We have your information on record and will email you as soon as the replacements become available. If you would like to discuss this with our tech community or read up on the latest updates, please visit our EggXpert forum:
http://www.eggxpert.com/forums/thread/682006.aspx

If none of the above options are suitable to your needs and you wish to return the board at this time for a full refund, please email us at intelsandybridge@newegg.com
and include your sales order number so we can help you out with your return.

 

[postmortemIA]

sorry, have to rub it in... my P35 motherboards' SATA2 works fine .. after 40 months of use. I have 5 SATA devices, so don't think that 2 ports will be enough in a long run.


its sad though that early adopters usually get punished.

 

[Diogenes2]

Hate to rub it in but my p67 motherboards' SATA2 works fine.. I' running 6 SATA devices and my CPU is running at 4.9ghz..

 

[Hogan773]

ohhhhh but just you wait Diogenes - YOU'LL BE SORRY that you bought SB! :awe:

[this is the attitude from some of these posters - I am a SB owner just like you and I'm not really feeling that bad. I get to keep using my system AND Intel will fix it in due time anyway. Why then did I get "sooo hosed" by buying SandyBridge????]

 

[eddietandy]

I'm bummed about the defect, but ever since I updated to the Asus 1253 BIOS my system has been rock solid. 5 SATA devices and not one single problem, no complaints. Life is good at a cool 4.2 GHz.

 

[dighn]

ohhhhh but just you wait Diogenes - YOU'LL BE SORRY that you bought SB! :awe:

[this is the attitude from some of these posters - I am a SB owner just like you and I'm not really feeling that bad. I get to keep using my system AND Intel will fix it in due time anyway. Why then did I get "sooo hosed" by buying SandyBridge????]

If this problem is limited to the SATA2 ports, it actually doesn't affect me at all. I'm just a bit miffed that the motherboard I paid good money for is defective in some way and still expect to be compensated for it.

 

[C1]

My Gowd. Did you watch the newegg youtube SB design issue video? Ends with, "my name is Paul, thank you for watching this youtube video and SEE YOU NEXT TIME".

YOU MEAN INTEL IS PLANNING ANOTHER ONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[UsandThem]

At least Gigabyte is on top of things. Glad I bought my SB board from them. Now I just have to wait until Newegg gets the new boards in stock (April-May).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4146/gigabyte-announces-6series-motherboard-replacement-program

 

[Anomaly1964]

If I am using my Intel/Marvell 6.0 SATA ports, would I REALLY ever need to replace the MB?

 

[busmaster11]

If I am using my Intel/Marvell 6.0 SATA ports, would I REALLY ever need to replace the MB?

Exactly... I'm not for being an early adopter if I have to pay out the nose for bleeding edge performance, but I got my 2500k and P8P67 for 330 from Microcenter the day it came out. it sucks that I have a 5400rpm 2GB mirror on the Sata2s, but a 25$ PCI-ex controller fixes it for me...

Whats the big deal? Should I have saved me 25$ and waited till August to buy? LOL

 

[Yables]

“Any Gigabyte 6-series B2 motherboards that have already been sold will be accepted back for replacement”

[FONT=&quot]I’ve got the [/FONT]Gigabyte [FONT=&quot]P67 [/FONT]and that’s what I wanted to here :thumbsup:

 

[jenneth]

That's great news, but I can't help to wonder if we have to go through their regular RMA process (ie. send in the old board first and then wait for the replacement to come). For those of us who have already sold off our old system, that's not really an option.