Assuming this is a SoC-level problem as opposed to a board-level problem, until a new stepping is established, won't RMA'd motherboards just have a newer version of the same potentially vulnerable chip?
There is a platform-level fix that all of the vendors are using now.Assuming this is a SoC-level problem as opposed to a board-level problem, until a new stepping is established, won't RMA'd motherboards just have a newer version of the same potentially vulnerable chip?
If you're keeping a log of responses, here's how it went for me:@lofie - keep us posted. I can update the main site with the response.
The failure rate on most devices is not high. Any C2000 device 2016 or older is vulnerable.
How long ago did you purchase? Were there any obvious blue wire fixes on the motherboard? Is the cpu revision different?2/9: New board arrives late in the day. Too late to be able to swap them out.
2/10: Swapped motherboards (took less than 30 minutes to unrack and swap)
Mine was purchased August(?) 2015How long ago did you purchase? Were there any obvious blue wire fixes on the motherboard? Is the cpu revision different?
If the fix were made with an updated CPU, the CPU stepping would change. My replacement C2558 board has no visible wire jumpers or changes (compared side-by-side with my older board), is still REV 1, and the CPU has the same B0 stepping :If they fixed the board, you wouldn't really be able to tell. They should just be removing the old CPU, reballing the board, and attaching the replacement CPU.
Source?Remember not all chips are defective , only the ones in a given time range and maybe from a given fab,
(Oddly, I thought I read something about Intel producing a new stepping to resolve the issue, but I guess I was mistaken... Based on the current document, there is (will be) no new chip/stepping to resolve the issue, and it's ONLY a platform change that works around it.)AVR54. System May Experience Inability to Boot or May Cease Operation
Problem: The SoC LPC_CLKOUT0 and/or LPC_CLKOUT1 signals (Low Pin Count bus clock outputs) may stop functioning.
Implication: If the LPC clock(s) stop functioning the system will no longer be able to boot.
Workaround: A platform level change has been identified and may be implemented as a workaround for this erratum.
Status: For the steppings affected, see Table 1, “Errata Summary Table” on page 9.The referenced table indicates stepping B0 (of course, B0 is the only stepping that exists in the wild.)
Can you please provide a link to something where Intel says that early processors aren't impacted? I'm not doubting that it exists, but it's something I haven't read.Source was intel about the dates. Early processors not affected, now that may be before B0 production it was not stated. Speculation about the fab and hence the ? as I don't know what fab's are used to make them.
If the above linked/quoted material is accurate, it would be a design issue. (Keeping in mind that I'm including the choice of materials used as part of the overall design.)It does not seem clear of the bug is really a pure design issue and/or a material or material application issue. At least that's the way I interpretation it.
I've seen many references to "18 months." NONE of them from Intel, and none of them are willing to directly connect 18 months with Intel. However, I think it's fair to look past the smokescreen and see the relationship. In that (likely valid) case, the stuff I've seen indicates that the issue is more likely to be a concern after 18 months. It doesn't indicate that it won't occur until then, and I'm sure there are plenty of 3+ year old chips in 24/7 use that never had an issue.Remember the c2000 has been produced since 2013, and it's been hinted at that it's only the chips that are reaching 18month now and will reason 18month soon that have the issue ?? What about the 2013 produced chips ?
That's an interesting question. I'd also love to know what the "platform level fix" could be that doesn't force a new motherboard revision, doesn't force any type of BIOS (or microcode) update, doesn't change the chip, and doesn't leave any clearly visible signs on an older board that supposedly has been "repaired."I actually can't right now imagine what fix they could also implement on existing product, has anybody see what they add or do ?