Did you know that on May 22, 2011 that Intel released the companies first Pentium processors that utilize the Intel 32nm Sandy Bridge architecture? The Intel Pentium processor family is comprised of three new SKUs, called the G620, G840 and G850. We have the Intel Pentium Processor G620 on the test bench to find out how this 2.6GHz dual-core processor does!

Source: Legit Reviews Hardware Articles

Do you think it’s too early to talk about Sandy Bridge’s successor? Well, Intel might have you talking about its Ivy Bridge processors as early as Computex Taipei 2011 (May 31 to June 4). According to a Digitimes report, which in turn cites a Chinese-language Commercial Times report, the chip maker will be showcasing its 22nm Ivy Bridge processors at Computex.

Expected early next year, Ivy Bridge chips will be manufactured using a 22nm process and feature a DirectX 11 graphics core, as opposed to 32nm Sandy Bridge chips that feature DirectX 10.1-compatible on-die graphics.

Talking of solutions that combine the CPU and GPU on the same die, AMD is working on second-generation Fusion APUs. However, 22nm chips aren’t on its mind. The chip maker is currently working on bringing its 32nm Llano APUs to the market.

The same Digitimes report also suggests that AMD has greatly accelerated the production of it upcoming Llano APUs, which are now expected to reach its ODM and OEM customers in May and not Q3 2011 as originally anticipated.

Source: Maximum PC - All Articles

Intel unintentionally put OEM system builders in a bad spot when the chip maker disclosed a design flaw in its 6-series chipset for the Sandy Bridge platform. OEMs were left scrambling to make the situation right with customers, whether it meant extending warranties, bypassing the buggy SATA ports by offering to install a free PCI-E SATA add-in card, or delaying builds until Intel is able to ship out a new batch of boards with a corrected chipset. The latter option means waiting until April, so Intel has come up with a different solution.

Following a discussion with computer makers, Intel said it is “resuming shipments of the Intel 6-series chipset for use only in PC system configurations that are not impacted by the design issue. Only computer makers who have committed to shipping the Intel 6-series chipset in PC system configurations that are not impacted by the design issue will be receiving these shipments.”

If you recall from our FAQ, the design bug doesn’t affect SATA ports 0/1, which happen to be the SATA 6Gb/s ports. The remaining four SATA 3Gb/s ports are affected, though failure or data corruption isn’t a foregone conclusion. Moreover, any additional SATA ports — such as those provided by Marvell or Jmicron — are unaffected as well.

What we gather from this announcement is that Intel is giving PC makers the green light to order, build, and ship systems that work around the faulty ports. In other words, hard drives and SSDs would need to be installed on SATA ports 0/1, though it’s unclear if PC makers would be allowed to install optical drives on the remaining four ports.

Intel previously stated that the bug would only affect a small number of PCs, and even then, the problem might not manifest for a long time. By avoiding those ports altogether, Intel is ensuring that the problem is all but eliminated (the only exception would be if a user chose to add another hard drive on their own) while letting OEMs get Sandy Bridge systems out the door.

Source: Maximum PC - All Articles

At this point, you’re well aware of the “design flaw” affecting Intel’s 6-series chipsets for Sandy Bridge. And if you’ve been keeping up with our related FAQ, you know that SATA ports 0/1 are unaffected by the bug. On Gigabyte boards, these are the two white SATA ports, which are both SATA 3.0. One way to figure out your SATA configuration is to tear off the side panel and take a peek inside, or you can download Gigabyte’s new 6 Series SATA Check utility.

“To help our customers optimize SATA performance on their 6 series motherboards, Gigabyte has created an easy-to-use utility called the Gigabyte 6 Series SATA Check that tells you if the SATA ports that you are using are in fact the affected Intel PCH SATA 2.0 ports,” Gigabyte said. “It also recommends that you change your SATA devices to the white SATA 3.0 ports. The utility is a simple program that will work on any 6 series chipset based motherboard, and has 3 possible scenarios that offer different advice for users to configure their SATA devices.”

Gigabyte’s giving off a bit of mixed signal here. The company claims its utility works with any 6-series chipset, though there’s a bold disclaimer that reads “For Gigabyte motherboards only.” Assuming it does work with all Sandy Bridge boards (and it should), this would be a handy utility to drop on your USB key when making housecalls — there’s no installation required, just fire it up for a software level glance at the SATA port configuration without diving inside the chassis.

You can download the utility here.

Source: Maximum PC - All Articles

One of the questions we cover in our continually updated FAQ regarding Intel’s Sandy Bridge chipset fiasco is how OEMs plan to deal with the situation. With new parts not expected to ship until April, can you even buy a Sandy Bridge rig at this point? And what about Sandy Bridge systems that have already shipped?

There really isn’t a single answer here, as it’s up to each individual vendor to decide how to proceed. Boutique system builder Origin, for example, is offering a lifetime warranty for anyone who wants to roll the dice and the keep their Sandy Bridge system. Should something go wrong, Origin says it will foot the bill for all charges, including shipping. For new orders, Origin is offering to slap a PCI Express-based SATA II card free of charge to sidestep the potential issue, or you can wait it out until April when new boards ship.

Puget is taking a similar approach, in that it is offering to replace affected boards once the new parts arrive (no word on whether or not they’ll cover shipping both ways). Alternately, Puget is also offering to ship out a SATA controller card, which might be the most painless solution.

What you can take away from all this is that you can still purchase a pre-built Sandy Bridge system, just be sure to check with your vendor of choice before hand to see what your options are when the updated silicon starts shipping.

Image Credit: Puget

Source: Maximum PC - All Articles

If you look hard enough, you can find a handful of Polish computer shops selling Intel’s upcoming Core i7 990X Extreme Edition processor online. Pricing starts at around €900 (US$1,240) and goes up from there.

Intel hasn’t yet officially launched this latest Gulftown part, though some OEMs already have it as a configurable option. The Core i7 990X will take its place as Intel’s newest flagship part with six cores operating at 3.46GHz (3.6GHz via Turbo Boost). Other specs include 256KB of L2 cache for each core, 12MB of L3 cache, and a 130W TDP.

The 990X also represents the end of the road for Gulftown, which Intel will replace with Sandy Bridge E silicon in the third quarter, Fudzilla says.

Image Credit: Intel

Source: Maximum PC - All Articles

Intel yesterday announced it discovered a design issue in its 6-Series chipsets intended for Sandy Bridge processors and opted to halt shipments of new boards. News of the flaw spread almost immediately across the Internet, though it took some time for popular vendors to pull potentially affected motherboards from their virtual store shelves. Today is a different story.

A quick glance online shows that Sandy Bridge boards are increasingly difficult to come by. While you can easily find and purchase Sandy Bridge processors, which Intel ensures are in tip-top shape, we couldn’t find a single socket 1155 motherboard at Micro Center, MWave, Newegg, TigerDirect, or ZipZoomFly.

While the issue puts Sandy Bridge builders in limbo, the financial impact to Intel is estimated at $700 million, which is the total cost to repair and replace busted boards and systems.

To keep abreast of this ongoing situation, be sure to bookmark our continually updated FAQ, in which we post more questions and answers as additional info surfaces.

Image Credit: Anandtech (Inside Newegg NJ)

Source: Maximum PC - All Articles

On the surface, asking Intel to manufacture a 16-core Atom processor sounds like an odd request. But that’s exactly what Microsoft has done. Not for Windows on the home desktop front, mind you, but for use in servers, ComputerWorld reports.

According to one Microsoft executive, low-power processors like Intel’s Atom chip and AMD’s Bobcat present a “huge opportunity” to tackle energy consumption woes. Even though these chips weren’t really developed with server tasks in mind, they’re more energy efficient at some server workloads than Xeon processors, says Dileep Bhandarkar, an engineer with Microsoft’s Global Foundation Services

“I think Intel is going to have to do it at some point. We’re seeing more of the ARM guys going after the server market and just to compete on power performance per watt, Intel is going to have to rely on the Atom CPU,” said Linley Gwennap, founder and principal analyst at The Linley Group.

While that’s true for ARM, Microsoft is hesitant to move away from x86. Bhandarkar said Microsoft would consider using ARM-based servers “if ARM can show [Microsoft] enough value over an x86 solution…but there has to be a clear performance benefit.”

Image Credit: Intel

Source: Maximum PC - All Articles

Let’s get a few things straight — there aren’t any 1,000 processors on the horizon, there’s no such chip on Intel’s processor roadmap, and we’ve yet to really tap into the computing power of today’s multi-core architectures. Got it? Great, let’s move on.

Despite the above disclaimers, Intel engineer Timothy Mattson was more than willing to sit and talk with ZDNet about what it would take to build such a monstrous CPU. Here’s some of what he had to say:

“The challenge this presents to those of us in parallel computing at Intel is, if our fabs could build a 1,000-core chip, do we have an architecture in hand that could scale that far? And if built, could that chip be effectively programmed?

“The architecture used on the 48-core chip could indeed fit that bill. I say that since we don’t have cache coherency overhead. Message-passing applications tend to scale at worst as the diameter of the network, which runs roughly as the square root of the number of nodes on the network. So I can say with confidence we could scale the architecture used on the SCC to 1,000 cores.”

Mattson went on to say that as far as programming goes, that too is feasible “as a cluster on a chip using a message-passing API.”

Read more of what he had to say here.

Image Credit: Intel

Source: Maximum PC - All Articles

Market research firm iSuppli declared a “microprocessor stalemate” between Intel and AMD, neither of which was able to wrestle any significant share from the other in the third quarter.

Intel’s global microprocessor share dropped ever-so-slightly from 80.4 percent in the second quarter to 80.1 percent in the third, while AMD went from 11.5 percent to 11.3 percent. In other words, both chip makers barely budged.

“In reality, the share changes in the third quarter from the two incumbents were extremely small and not at all significant,” said Matthew Wilkins, principal analyst for compute platforms at iSuppli. “What is significant, however, is that neither company has been able to take any sizable share away from the other. One reason is that each company offers well-matched competitive product portfolios. Another reason is that end markets are not undergoing significant changes in market share of product lineup that would impact microprocessor market share.”

AMD fans may want to delcare a tiny victory for the third quarter after having dropped its share 0.1 percent less than Intel, while Intel’s fan base will point to the fact that AMD’s share is down 0.8 percent from 2009, while Intel’s is down just 0.1 percent.

Nothing to get excited about either way, though 2011 could be quite a different story.

“There remains a very competitive situation between the two dominant suppliers,” Wilkins added. “In particular, we look forward to seeing the effect that AMD’s forthcoming Fusion products might have on the share situation for these two mega-players.”

Source: Maximum PC - All Articles