Conroe Releases at B-2 Stepping & Could G965 Release on Time?

[Das Capitolin]

Conroe Releases at B-2 Stepping & Could G965 Release on Time?

Intel hints that Conroe is going to release at B-2 Stepping as Intel Core 2 Duo processor. As for the previous version, a problem was found to make the system full loaded. It’s only solved in the new stepping. We don’t encourage anyone to buy the engineering sample from the web. The retail version is going to release in the end of this month, and it’s much stable.

Further, some of the manufacturers noticed that the released Intel P965 chipset has got the expected performance from Fast Memory Access technology, performing the same as i975X with DDR2 800. Intel has promised to fix the problem in the next P965 C-2 Stepping, and is expected to release in late July.

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=627088&starttime=0&endtime=0

[werty316]

Only desperate people who want bragging rights would buy a engineering sample. Its good that Intel caught on and made a revision.

[Das Capitolin]

Only desperate people who want bragging rights would buy a engineering sample. Its good that Intel caught on and made a revision.

It probably won't suprise you to know how many hardware review sites clammored at the idea of purchasing and engineering sample so they could run benchmarks and suck. Sad, I know.

[Miles]

Here's part 1 & part 2 of an article I published on that very same issue a few years ago...

Marketing Hype...or Not Quite Ready For Prime Time

Let me describe a scenario that I believe is all too familiar to most computer enthusiasts:

You’ve just read about the latest and greatest product soon to be released. You initially think to yourself, “this sounds really cool”. After more thought, deliberation, and nights of lying in bed thinking just how incredibly fast this device will make your system you decide this new jewel is worthy of further consideration. Like any self respecting computer enthusiast you do your homework. You read every review possible and sort out details with all your amigos on line. Following thirty or so more days of discussing every aspect of this products potential you decide the day it’s released you’ll have it, never mind what it costs.

The long awaited moment finally arrives and you ask off work early so you can escort the brown truck to your home. You march into your castle with your treasure under your arm grinning from ear to ear in anticipation of now finally having a better performing rig than all your friends do. Using every tool in your arsenal and all the tricks the reviewers have taught, you ensure a faultless install. It’s finally done, you hit the switch and it whirs to life. You install the OS and the drivers in the right order. You run all the stability tests known to man which serve to confirm it’s now safe to push this baby to its limit.

This is about to be your moment in the sun, the winning touchdown in the Rose Bowl! With your game face on, you incrementally begin to push this baby to it’s pinnacle. BUT WAIT...! How can this possibly be? There’s something wrong! The manufacturer’s ads said...! This is supposed to be the best overclocker known to man. You spew many obscenities and begin to question just why its not performing as advertised!

The above captioned scenario has happened to each and every one of us that live on the bleeding edge of computing. My questions: Are we victims of marketing hype or are today’s products just not quite ready for prime time or both? Are the manufacturers rushing their products to market to catch all those early dollars generated by their marketing hype? Is it just a game with the winner being the one that waits?

I’ll list a few very generic examples of what I’m talking about:

1) One of the major manufacturers produces a new chipset with obvious speed advantages over your previous rig. At the same time the this same manufacturer produces a more cost effect solution, but it doesn’t have quite the same speed advantages as it’s big brother; all things else being equal, or so you think. You purchase the more expensive piece of equipment only to find out that its baby brother has been tweaked by other manufacturers to have the same speed advantages and costs about 25% less.

2) Another manufacturer of motherboards with a quality reputation produces a product that has less than stellar results. It’s fast enough, but you learn that some of the parts you were led to believe that would be included with the board were substituted with cheaper ones. After purchasing it you find out the manufacturer will release a brand new edition of the board in just a few weeks with the parts you thought were in the first revision.

3) Still another manufacturer of motherboards releases a product that has excellent preliminary performance results. Later users begin to speak of temperature issues and a finicky north bridge fan. The processor runs several degrees hotter than it does on any other board; be it right or wrong. After a few weeks the northbridge fan begins to sound like a jet getting ready for departure. To your dismay you read the manufacturer’s forum and it is acknowledged that the temperature issue is inherent to this product and will not be fixed. You also find out that they are planning a new release of the board shortly that will include what appears to be a better fan on the northbridge and better cooling for the systems electrical components.

4) Many of the newer motherboards fail to fully utilize your new high dollar, high-speed, DDR Ram. The memory is advertised to run at 2,2,2,5, but not on this motherboard it won’t. Other motherboards are very finicky about the type of RAM that you use requiring several purchases and returns to get it right.

5) My final example is one that hit home personally. The manufacturer I mentioned in example number 1 above produced their “top of the line” motherboard. Using utility software and accompanying benchmarks showed that later BIOS releases for this board actually disabled the speed function this manufacturer designed and marketed. When the issue was addressed with them, their constituents received canned answers saying that we the consumers must be mistaken; of course it works; it can’t be inactivated! The software that tests this function is wrong and that the benchmarks are incorrect. We’re working on a solution!

Manufacturers term these product idiosyncrasies and/or problems as “errata”. Errata known before product release are generally broken down into two categories: 1) Those that either won’t be fixed in this hardware version release because the fix delay product release or is cost prohibitive; or 2) Those issues that will be fixed in a subsequent BIOS release. In either case, the infrequency of occurrence of these errata is determined to be acceptable to release this product to the eagerly awaiting consumer.

Well guess who pays the price for those errata? We the computer enthusiasts do! Why? Because we attempt to push the technology to performance levels that average consumer doesn’t even know exist. Like it or not we will always be considered a niche market by most manufacturers. There are a small but growing number of manufacturers out there that realize our needs, and are generally trying to cater to them. Why? My take is they realize that we are in fact doing valuable testing that can save them countless hours and costs in future product iterations.

These are only just a few examples of issues that have taken place in our world over the last 90 days. My intent in publishing these is certainly not at all to stir controversy or flaming wars. The rules of the game we computer enthusiasts play by will never be published and we must accept the good with the bad if we want to continue to play. That’s why many of us have a very extensive used parts inventory!

There are many excellent scenarios as well. Some remarkable products have been recently produced that fully lived up to and often times exceeded the manufacturer’s specifications. I am merely trying to generate some true thought and meaningful discussion about your experiences. Who knows maybe if we keep it professional some manufacturer may just use our experiences to help make a better, faster, and even more stable product in the future.

[Miles]

Part 2

Marketing Hype Part II…Was This Damn Thing Ever Tested?


Introduction

One of my self-appointed duties as Senior Editor at *******.com is to read user threads not only at our forum(s) but also at many others to determine trends and understand what types of article will best appeal to the enthusiast market that we cater to. Over the past several months I have noticed an alarming trend of negativity in member comments concerning product reliability and performance. Some of you may remember my first article about a month ago on “Marketing Hype” where I took a very soft, generic approach to this issue. In this article I will take off the kid gloves!


History

Most of you will recall the Asus P4S8X motherboard, which in my personal belief was one of the most horrific products ever released to the consumer market. The P4S8X was much touted by Asus and pre-release reviews prior to its introduction and was supposed to do everything the enthusiast of the time could dream of, but most never saw one shred of proof in this regard. I will detail some of the problems this board introduced for those of you that have tried to block them from memory:

1) Components such as capacitors, clock generators, and voltage regulators varied from board to board
2) The board was supposed to support DDR400 but many never experienced it
3) The memory the board did function with was extremely limited
4) Most users were unable to get AGP8X to properly function
5) Problems were said to be fixed in a forthcoming BIOS release, most saw many releases come and go and the problems still remained
6) Voltages varied widely from board to board
7) Many never saw stability
8... The board went through several very rapid hardware revisions
9) Many that RMA’ed the board received a replacement with the same or worse problems
10) Firewires caused many problems with this board
11) USB 2.0 on some boards wasn’t properly supported
12) OS installation issues and repeated unexplained BSODs
13) Onboard Cmedia sound card caused cracking, popping, and generally
unfavorable results
14) General failure of the secondary IDE channel
15) Most of these boards wouldn’t do much anything they were advertised to do up to and including boot

Do any of these issues sound familiar, both then and now?

While I cannot support this with actual numbers, I would hazard a guess that is product set a record in RMAs that may never be equaled. Just out of curiosity I went to one major computer forum and found over 2,000 separate threads (not posts) where the P48SX was mentioned and an additional 2,200 separate threads (not posts) where the P4SBX was the center focus of the thread. It has to have been one major financial fiasco for Asus not to mention the impact this one piece of equipment had one the consumer market. I personally know people that will not buy the Asus brand to this day due to this major blunder and more importantly the customer service (or lack there of) they received when trying to rectify the problem.
Today’s Issues

While we can thank our luck stars that products of this poor quality are few and far between I honestly believe the P4S8X and it’s associated marketing hype readily set the stage for much of what we are seeing now. Why? The answers are very simple:

1) Products are being insufficiently tested before their release
2) Pre-release reviews are rendered in most cases with manufacturer supplied engineering samples
3) Manufacturer’s marketing departments tend to greatly embellish what a product will and will not do
4) Most consumers take marketing hype at face value
5) Corporate strategies include “plausible deniability” meaning there are 1,000 plausible reasons to explain why what we said isn’t totally true
6) He who releases the product first, speaks the loudest, and keeps costs the lowest will garner the lion’s share of the profits.

Today’s issues although not as rude include most of the problems detailed above with P4S8X but additional issues include but are not limited to: 1) Early component failure due to poor component quality; 2) Early system failure due to poor component quality and poor integration; 3) Less than stellar results on properly functioning systems; 4) Statistically significant variance in performance with two identical products; and 5) More DOA products than I have seen in some time.

Consumers, especially those of us in the enthusiast market who have to be the first kid on the block with the new toy, pay very dearly in both an emotional and literal sense. Vendors such as New Egg have established new exclusionary policies for their protection such as “**This item is NOT REFUNDABLE, exchange for same exact item only!!**” And, who in their right mind can blame them? What are we to do? Sue! Not likely, in that many including us for being somewhat gullible share the blame and more importantly the cost of a class action suit of this nature would be well more than you or I could ever afford.

Possible Solutions

I have thought very long and very hard about the possible solutions to this well-established problem. I will mention what I believe the consumer and manufacturer can do help decrease the incidence of this type of problem in the future; first consumers:

1) Consumers need to quit rushing to the “slaughter house”, patience before buying will save you in the long run

2) Put more credibility in those reviews done by that handful of sights that actually evaluate off-the-shelf products and not manufacturer supplied samples

3) “Put your money where your mouth is”, in that if a manufacturer’s recent product(s) have not lived up to their advertised standard buy from one whose products have
4) If you feel wronged by a purchase avail yourself to various consumer rights groups and let your story be known, there are likely many having the same problems and there’s strength in numbers

5) Be aware of local, state, and national consumer protection laws that protect you from consumer fraud, yeah I said fraud! If a product is knowingly misrepresented by the manufacturer it’s quite simply fraud and again there’s strength in numbers

6) Let others know of the problems you are experiencing before they make the same mistake

7) Stop creating a venue for the marketing hype, if you don’t expect a product until it’s properly completed, chances are much better it will be just that

8) Remember you are the consumer, make an informed decision on what to purchase realizing your hard earned $$ are dear to you and also very necessary to assure the manufacturer’s success.

Now lets put the shoe on the other foot and make some recommendations for the manufacturer:

1) Test your products sufficiently before rushing them out to the consumer

2) Tell it like it is! If the likelihood is that only 50% of a certain product will reach a certain milestone, then tell it that way the consumer appreciates honesty

3) Remember you’re are only on top because the consumer put you there and this can change if you’re not careful

4) Get more in touch with your customers…if you are 3,000 miles away from your main customer base how can you understand their needs

5) If you make a mistake, make it right; take a lesson from some of the other manufacturers who recall products and supply their customers with the new and improved model…it may cost you up front but not doing so will cost you more in the long run

6) Establish a consumer advisory board for suggestions in future product development and use their recommendations

7) Establish a support division that is second to none in providing everything the customer needs to enjoy his/her purchase for your livelihood depends on it

Final Words

The product horror stories over the last year of the type I have been discussing are not permissive through the entire genre of computer product manufacturers. There have been quite a number success stories from manufacturers that seemed to follow a sound marketing strategy coupled with good customer service. While I know my words will only touch a very small percentage of who read them, I believe that if some of the above suggestions are followed stories in the coming year can be much happier for the manufacturer and consumer alike.

[Das Capitolin]

Thanks for the article miles. It is pretty long, so I printed it and made it ready for tomorrow mornings "breaktime" reading. Thought you should know. :-D

[Miles]

The words in those articles echoed in my brain repeatedly after the recent experience with NewEgg, the problem is NewEgg is still one of the best, if not the best sites out there. I only wish they would have treated me like they would have wanted to have been treated in a similar situation.

[Das Capitolin]

The words in those articles echoed in my brain repeatedly after the recent experience with NewEgg, the problem is NewEgg is still one of the best, if not the best sites out there. I only wish they would have treated me like they would have wanted to have been treated in a similar situation.

They treat me "okay". But they still tread me like they tread everyone else. And I suppose I am everyone else, except for the $60000 a year I purchase from them.

[Kougar]

1) One of the major manufacturers produces a new chipset with obvious speed advantages over your previous rig. At the same time the this same manufacturer produces a more cost effect solution, but it doesn’t have quite the same speed advantages as it’s big brother; all things else being equal, or so you think. You purchase the more expensive piece of equipment only to find out that its baby brother has been tweaked by other manufacturers to have the same speed advantages and costs about 25% less.

My own system is a good example of this... It may be a 865P chipset, but Abit worked out a backdoor to enable the PAT memory features of the more expensive 875P chipset. Granted how they went about doing it is mostly useless from my limited experience, but I still have the options and boost in synthetic benchmarks due to it.


2) Another manufacturer of motherboards with a quality reputation produces a product that has less than stellar results. It’s fast enough, but you learn that some of the parts you were led to believe that would be included with the board were substituted with cheaper ones. After purchasing it you find out the manufacturer will release a brand new edition of the board in just a few weeks with the parts you thought were in the first revision.

This is reminding me of Abit again... IS7 series in 6+ flavors, when it is the cousin of the 875P IC7 series... which had the IC7, IC7-C, IC7 Max1, IC7 Max2, and finally IC7 Max3 editions, not counting any other of the IC7 variants I've forgotten about. :roll:

3) Still another manufacturer of motherboards releases a product that has excellent preliminary performance results. Later users begin to speak of temperature issues and a finicky north bridge fan. The processor runs several degrees hotter than it does on any other board; be it right or wrong. After a few weeks the northbridge fan begins to sound like a jet getting ready for departure. To your dismay you read the manufacturer’s forum and it is acknowledged that the temperature issue is inherent to this product and will not be fixed. You also find out that they are planning a new release of the board shortly that will include what appears to be a better fan on the northbridge and better cooling for the systems electrical components.

You're batting a thousand... For the Abit IS7 line the first board revisions used an inadequate northbridge heatsink assembly, in which the fan also failed in under a year for most users... They later switched to a completely new NB heatsink/fan design for all later IS7s and related plethoa of variants.

4) Many of the newer motherboards fail to fully utilize your new high dollar, high-speed, DDR Ram. The memory is advertised to run at 2,2,2,5, but not on this motherboard it won’t. Other motherboards are very finicky about the type of RAM that you use requiring several purchases and returns to get it right.

Been here, found this out... with my Abit IS7 of course. It did at least run 2-2-2-5 nicely enough, but 2.5-3-3-7 at any speed was unstable even when the RAM is rated for those timings at DDR550 speeds.

5) My final example is one that hit home personally. The manufacturer I mentioned in example number 1 above produced their “top of the line” motherboard. Using utility software and accompanying benchmarks showed that later BIOS releases for this board actually disabled the speed function this manufacturer designed and marketed. When the issue was addressed with them, their constituents received canned answers saying that we the consumers must be mistaken; of course it works; it can’t be inactivated! The software that tests this function is wrong and that the benchmarks are incorrect. We’re working on a solution!

Wow, I have to wonder who tried to pull that load of garbage off? I'm thankful I have nothing I can add about my Abit IS7 here... :|

What you go on to cover about errata could not be more true! Thanks for posting that here Miles, those be wise words... and a big reason for why I can resist the urge to buy yet another Kentsfield that has shown up on ebay... ;)


More back to the topic starter, I have a question:

Further, some of the manufacturers noticed that the released Intel P965 chipset has got the expected performance from Fast Memory Access technology, performing the same as i975X with DDR2 800. Intel has promised to fix the problem in the next P965 C-2 Stepping, and is expected to release in late July.

Is this saying the performance of the 965 chipset is a mistake, and that infact Intel is quickly moving to curb some of the fast memory access tech so they don't undercut the 975X chipset? From what I've seen the 965P already supersedes the 975X chipset in performance terms, so this was how I read that.