Print 43 comment(s) - last by KristopherKubi.. on Dec 20 at 3:36 PM

A new Intel roadmap claims the company will miss its January 20, 2008 launch cycle -- Taiwanese media points the finger at conspiracy

DigiTimes ran an article earlier this week detailing that Intel will miss its January 20 launch date for all three of its 45nm quad-core desktop processors.

Monica Chen claims, "Intel has already notified its partners that it will push back the launch of the three CPUs to February or March next year, depending on AMD's schedule for triple-core and the upcoming Phenom CPUs."

AMD's newest corporate roadmap released last week claims its tri-core Phenom processors, codenamed Toliman, will launch at 2.3 GHz and 2.4 GHz frequencies in "late Q1 2008."

These Intel processors -- dubbed the Core 2 quad Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 -- are expected to be Intel's first mainstream 45nm desktop offerings. The company launched its ultra-enthusiast QX9650 3.0 GHz quad-core processor on the November 11, 2007.   Between September 2007 and December 2007, Intel changed the launch date of these processors from "early" January to January 20, 2008.

Chen also adds, "Launching the CPUs now will not benefit Intel much in its battle with AMD, while they could cause damage to Intel's 65nm quad-core CPUs, therefore the company has decided it is in no rush to release new products until AMD is able to present more of a threat."

Intel insiders, speaking off the record, would not comment on the specific January 20th launch parts.  One employee added, "It’s a gigantic stretch and almost humorous to think [Intel] would delay products based on a rumored ongoing delays of a competitive product line announced just six days ago."

January 20th, 2008, would also mark the launch of Intel's dual-core 45nm offerings.  These processors, the E8190, E8200, E8400 and E8500 sell in bulk quantities at $163 to $266; with core frequencies ranging from 2.66 GHz to 3.16 GHz. 

Intel's 45nm mobile processors are confirmed for a January 6, 2008, launch.  Several notebook manufacturers tell DailyTech they already received processors shipments for volume.

These five mobile offerings will range from 2.1 GHz to 2.8 GHz, though Intel guidance suggests these are only dual-core offerings.  Quad-core mobile processors are scheduled on the company roadmap, though not until the Montevina Centrino refresh in late 2008.

January 6, 2008, also marks the launch of the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.  Dell, HP and Gateway already notified media about embargoed Centrino products set to debut on that same day.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By thornburg on 12/19/2007 1:58:11 PM , Rating: 5
While this story may or may not be true, if a company decides to delay a product because market conditions are not right, and it is more profitable to delay it, how exactly is that a conspiracy?

Now, if someone were paying Intel to delay the launch, or if Intel were paying AMD to screw up, that would be a conspiracy. But one entity (in this case Intel) can't conspire with itself.

In short, this is a complete non-story.

By James Holden on 12/19/2007 2:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sure I agree with you -- until I read Monica's quotes. She's either getting paid to generate FUD (and hits) for Digitimes, or she just needed a few more sentences to get paid for that article.

Either way, the roadmap we have at work still says January 20 for the quad core stuff. Go figure.

By Polynikes on 12/19/2007 2:35:24 PM , Rating: 2

By Mitch101 on 12/19/07, Rating: 0
By JackBeQuick on 12/19/2007 3:29:45 PM , Rating: 1
Real informative there. It's a sad day in journalism when the Inquirer is what the new guys aspire to.

There's absolutely zero knowledge in that drivel post. At least on DailyTech they back stuff up with facts

By Mitch101 on 12/19/2007 3:37:34 PM , Rating: 3
Little is known about the bug. We know it exists we don't know what causes it or if there is going to be a work around. Needless to say it will be resolved. Discovering what causes it will eventually come out. Anyone remember the P60?

By JackBeQuick on 12/19/2007 3:45:07 PM , Rating: 1
You remind me of the guy wearing the hat in the picture.

How do you know the bug even exists other than some oft-post on a forum nobody has ever heard of. I seem to remember everyone and their brother jumping all over AMD when the TLB bug hit, but that was becuase it was an actual showstopper.

This Intel bug seems more like a Rahul Sood conspiracy theory.

By Mitch101 on 12/19/2007 4:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
The name calling tin foil hat comment serves what purpose?

Its a very rare bug that will be fixed in only a few weeks time. Its no big deal that is being blown out of proportion. Were not sure it will effect any known application. It will probably stay off the errata sheet unless its discovered in the wild. I take it you weren't around for the P60 issue?

If you noted Intel wont say the release date they instead now quote the chip will be out in Q1 as expected. 6 weeks past Jan 20th is still Q1. They will not confirm or deny the bug. Why do this if there is no bug? We believe Intel is still looking into what applications may be effected b the bug. Not much is known.

Intel would be quick to squash the rumor if it weren't true.

Do you honestly think Intel cares about what AMD does to delay their own products?

How much profit do you think AMD would make with just 6 weeks from Intel's generosity. Laughable.

By JackBeQuick on 12/19/2007 4:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
I was documenting the f00f bug at my company before most people in this forum were in high school.

"They will not confirm or deny the bug."

See this is what gets me annoyed. You want to believe there is a bug, I understand. The errata has been published for months, and the real integrators (HP, Dell, whathave you) would have leaked it all over to the media if they could find a corner case. How do you think the TLB bug made it public?

"Intel would be quick to squash the rumor if it weren't true."

Not likely. NASA doesn't grant interviews to "journalists" looking to confirm if they landed on the moon either.

All I'm saying is that it totally sounds like something Fudo or Charlie or Rahul got "tipped off" to and did zero research to see if it was true. My money is on that it isn't true.

By Mitch101 on 12/19/07, Rating: 0
By KristopherKubicki on 12/19/2007 6:07:03 PM , Rating: 3
Here's what Intel sent me regarding this:

Not saying anything beyond these parts are on track for Q1 like we've always said. Errata are a part of life with CPUs and we are not confirming or denying potential undisclosed errata. All errata are disclosed via the normal eratta process...

If you've got something a little more concrete I can try to get a response

By Mitch101 on 12/20/2007 10:51:12 AM , Rating: 2
You have basically the same information. We don't have a denial of a bug and strangely they even tell you what it is "Errata are a part of life with CPU's". Its only something that will cause the Jan 20th date to be pushed back. Still Q1 but not Jan 20th unless its a paper launch.

We didn't think it was big news just a minor setback. I know I am looking for a quad Yorkfield personally and for work we need them for VM systems. Demand alone we think it would take 6 weeks for the chips to catch up anyhow.

I think everyone was taking to to the level like AMD's recent issue and we don't believe this is the case. If it was then it would be big news. 6 weeks is minor especially since AMD doesnt have a competing product nor do we believe Phenom will overclock enough to compete at that level.

We did have one hit that it might be something when you combine an X48 chipset and the Yorkfield core but getting someone to come forward well good luck. We did a search and their are some indications that memory performance decreases from he X38 to the X48 to support the possibility. DDR1600 mhz and Yorkfield? Only possible nibbles nothing concrete so far.

By Phynaz on 12/19/2007 4:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
You can't fix a cpu bug in "a few weeks time". It takes months.

Plese show one - just one - reliable source that has picked up this news of a bug delaying Penryn.

Nah, didn't think you could.

By Mitch101 on 12/19/2007 4:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it can be resolved in weeks not months its called Micro Code or uCode. Apparently they don't need a silicon respin only to test the update properly but again no one is exactly sure what the bug is.

By Phynaz on 12/19/2007 4:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
So nobody knows what the bug is, but you know how it's going to be fixed.

And you still can't provide a reputable link.

Does that about sum it up?

By Mitch101 on 12/19/2007 5:06:09 PM , Rating: 1
For the final arguments sake I will say that we don't know what the bug is but we know one exists that will cause the chips to be delayed a short period of time as of now. Most probably for testing to confirm the fix. Who knows it could turn into something else. As of now its only a few weeks. Its not official yet and only Intel can make that statement.

Not sure what the big deal is about over 6 weeks time period. Bugs happen all the time. This one might be a little more and if it is everyone all over the web will be posting the information. 6 weeks wont make any difference to either Intel nor AMD's bottom line sales numbers.

Can you provide a reputable link on the web to prove it doesn't exist? Have any official Intel statement to the contrary?

The 20th will be here soon enough let it go.

By JackBeQuick on 12/19/2007 5:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
Can you provide a reputable link on the web to prove it doesn't exist? Have any official Intel statement to the contrary?

I'm Paul Otelini. Do you have any official Intel statement or repubtable link on the web to prove I'm not?

By Mitch101 on 12/19/2007 5:25:12 PM , Rating: 1
That is funny I might as well be Hoctor Ruiz since were role playing.

The main reason for making 45nm chips is to increase profits. The moment they begin making 45nm parts is the moment their 65nm parts are not as profitable an item. To say that they wont release quad cores because of a lack of competition is laughable especially because consumers don't pay the premium like those who are looking to build servers in their infrastructure.

Its like saying Intel isn't interested in maximizing profits or serving the best most profitable products to the server community especially when budgets are usually renewed at the beginning of the year for most IT departments.

If you feel the need to get in the last word go ahead I am moving on. If we get more information I will post it.

By DallasTexas on 12/19/2007 5:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome to the forum.

By Samus on 12/20/2007 4:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I know, microcode updates have patched all cpu errata for years, except for the P60 floating point bug and the PIII-1.13GHz cache overflow bug. Both errata were squashed with a new stepping, which did take a few months.

By Hawkido on 12/19/2007 4:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
but that was becuase it was an actual showstopper

Okay, has anyone actually had their "Show" stopped by the TLB?

Kettle! It's for you! It's pot calling!

By kingpotnoodle on 12/20/2007 5:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
Well to quote the article:

"The good news is that if your looking for a dual core Wolfdale in January that these chips do not have the issue and will be released in late January."

Given that a Wolfdale is a single dual core die, and that the quad cores are two of these sandwiched together you would expect that if the bug was present in the quad it was also present in the Wolfdale unless of course Intel have different core steppings used in the quads, which would seem odd given the similar launch window...

It's so thin on facts, no stepping details about what is affected, no anything really... sounds like complete FUD by an AMD fanboy to drag Intel into the TLB debacle... nearly every chip out there has some minor errata, you try designing something that complex and covering all the bases, however most of these errata would probably cause a non-fatal issue every few million hours of use or something and get fixed by microcode updates (one good reason to update your BIOS regularly).

It's only the odd errata that is even slightly likely to occur - like the P60 bug and the recent AMD/TLB problem - and even those are rarely affecting anything.

By TheJian on 12/19/2007 9:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Do I need to remind you of the "AMD, LIES START HERE" story? No factual information there. They hadn't even talked with AMD and called them liars.

I don't quite understand the 'inquirer' hate stuff that goes on at this site. They usually beat DT to the same stories (check the posts...You can read everything at theinq by 5-6am or so in america - DT is usually far later that day). Do they fling a rumor here and there? SURE. Just like DT as stated above. Every site out there does this crap. I'll admit they post a lot of "drivel" but they also post a ton of good stuff and EARLY (but drivel to me is any story not tech related - everywhere girl comes to mind). Sometimes weeks/months ahead of time when everyone calls them idiots. A few months later a lot of it comes true.

I'm not saying either is better, I read them all. I'll even read Tom's news occasionally (though I hate their slanted reviews, I do read their news). The only complaint I have about theinq is that stinking brit talk. I can never understand that crap. But that has little to do with their news.

Let the flames begin... :rolls eyes:

By KristopherKubicki on 12/20/2007 3:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
The AMD article was a play on words to the whitepaper. Even the guy who wrote the whitepaper thought it was clever -- I'm guessing you might not have read it.

They hadn't even talked with AMD and called them liars.

They declined to respond originally, then admitted what we published was correct after it got traction. You might want to read up on that too.

I'll admit they post a lot of "drivel" but they also post a ton of good stuff and EARLY (but drivel to me is any story not tech related - everywhere girl comes to mind). Sometimes weeks/months ahead of time when everyone calls them idiots. A few months later a lot of it comes true.

I like my news real, rather than early. I personally have nothing but the best of wishes for Mike's site, but judging by the number of competitive sites that tend to filter out the "drivel" section, I sort of doubt they'll be around much longer.

By stburke on 12/19/2007 1:34:47 PM , Rating: 5
here we go again...

RE: damn
By 91TTZ on 12/19/2007 1:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
That about sums it up.

RE: damn
By 16nm on 12/19/2007 2:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Why? So the date was pushed off two weeks. That's not a big deal, is it? Besides, the really good 45nm processors, the ones that are really worth buying over the current 65nm parts, are still a ways off.

RE: damn
By FITCamaro on 12/19/2007 1:50:31 PM , Rating: 3
Was going to say the same thing. Intel is already getting complacent again due to its current lead.

RE: damn
By eye smite on 12/19/2007 2:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, all this does is prove intel is the same old company as they were when the P2, P3, and P4 launched which is why I went to amd when the K6-2 launched and have been using their products ever since. I won't buy or build an intel system no matter how fast it runs the quarter mile, they're dirty business people.

RE: damn
By Phynaz on 12/19/2007 3:12:40 PM , Rating: 3
Dirty busniess people?


More like smart business people.

RE: damn
By JackBeQuick on 12/19/2007 3:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
Your lack of understanding of how this industry works is appalling.

These guys set the processor launch dates months in advance. It gets timed with media blitzes, multimillion dollar commercials, Superbowl initiatives, all that jazz.

I personally doubt the launch date is even pushed at all. But then to cite it got moved because Intel wants to wait for tri-core?

Please continue to play armchair product manager though, it sure made me annoyed enough to post.

RE: damn
By MPE on 12/19/2007 2:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
I am not worried yet since the Intel's output has been fast and furious.

Conroe is as viable as any AMD or Intel offering except for Quadcores. With 65mm and 45mm here I would surmise that they are in fact ahead of the mainstream demand curve in regards to technological CPU improvements.

A breather for AMD?
By BernardP on 12/19/2007 2:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
If this proves to be true, could it be that Intel is letting AMD breathe a little? Intel wants AMD to survive and stay relatively weak. Intel doesn't want to become a monopoly, which would happen if AMD goes under.

RE: A breather for AMD?
By masher2 on 12/19/2007 3:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. It's a sad fact of our current business climate; it's in Intel's best interest to keep AMD a (relatively) healthy competitor. Releasing superior products that give AMD no room whatsoever to compete would simply earn Intel a multi-billion dollar slap from regulators.

RE: A breather for AMD?
By mrdelldude on 12/19/2007 3:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
Additionally, I'd imagine it's still cheaper for Intel to produce 65nm chips, due to the investment made in the past, vs the startup time to move to 45nm. They want to continue to leverage the cost of the 65nm fabs.

So the longer they can stretch out the 65nm lifespan, the more financially effecient it is for them.

RE: A breather for AMD?
By JackBeQuick on 12/19/2007 3:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
Intel's "tock" cycle has always cannibalized its previous offerings. That's pretty much the point.

Intel launched a whole new architecture a few months after its first 65nm offerings.

"So the longer they can stretch out the 65nm lifespan, the more financially effecient it is for them."

That's so not how it works. The day Intel rolls out its first 45nm chip is the day the 65nm chips start to lose value. They can still make money for the company, but they can cram more chips on a 300mm wafer at 45nm than 65nm, and that's what they're going to do.

Short term memory
By System48 on 12/19/2007 1:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
Does no one remember the problem found a couple weeks ago with their 45nm parts, they had already said it would be a 4-6 week delay to spin out a new revision. The story was originally posted on

RE: Short term memory
By James Holden on 12/19/2007 1:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't that story proved bunk? Cause Intel is still shipping its 45nm parts and Jan 20 is the dual-core launch date...

Good for them
By Spivonious on 12/19/2007 2:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
Intel wants to take thunder away from Phenom. It's called competition not conspiracy.

By deeznuts on 12/19/2007 5:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, where is the alleged conspiracy? Even if everything in the article is true, where is the consipracy? Who is Intel conspiring with?

That said, the "doesn't want be a monopoly" fears are unfounded. There is nothing wrong or illegal about being a monopoly. If AMD fell off the face of the earth, Intel wouldn't be in trouble, as long as they didn't engage, nor will engage, in antitrust behavior. If Intel becomes a monopoly they would have no reason to engage in anti-competitive behavior obviously. And if they didn't engage in such behavior to defeat AMD, i.e. beat them fair and square, they are usually ok.

The problem however is when you are a monopoly it is way too easy to engage in such behavior or be accused of it. But there are alternatives, you have VIA and possibly others. Not perfect alternatives but look at Windows vs. Linux/Apple OS.

Ignore ...skip it.....
By crystal clear on 12/19/2007 5:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
Monica Chen claims, "Intel has already notified its partners that it will push back the launch of the three CPUs to February or March next year, depending on AMD's schedule for triple-core and the upcoming Phenom CPUs."

Its plain B... S... & nothing else.

She should write for some Hollywood/Bollywood gossip magazine.

Website of the types of Digitimes,Inquirer etc always claim to have their insider person/information & base their stories on them.

Plain guessing or I would say faking....

So easy to claim on such so called reliable sources,our man inside blah ...

By someguy743 on 12/19/2007 9:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
They're really giving AMD a beating when they're down. Intel is MUCH bigger kid. 32 times bigger than AMD actually. IBM and the other fab partners are watching this schoolyard fight and they don't like it. Not too fair of a fight. It's getting ugly.

One of these days little AMD is going to get bigger and get together a few of their buddies and merge or something and get after Intel bigtime. Then it'll be more of a heavyweight title fight instead of heavyweight vs. flyweight like it is now.

Us customers what to see AMD get a lot bigger. AMD makes good products. They just bit off a little more than they could chew in the last few years with buying ATI. They probably should have been working harder on their 45nm process technology and testing the hell out of their new Barcelonas and Phenoms and tweaking them up to 3-4 Ghz speeds. They'll get there. Let's just hope they can get there pretty quick before Chipzilla hurts them bad.

they already said this
By JosefTor on 12/20/2007 5:01:23 AM , Rating: 2
Conspiracy??? Intel already said they intended to do something like this so as not to completely dominate AMD too much. A duopoly is better then a monopoly in regulations.

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki