The bug seemingly is tracked back to a transistor bias voltage.
Quote from Anandtech "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 he just waved his hand in air. It would have been better if he just said he didn't know much about the bug or why it happened.
This Intel bug might not be as big a demon that many others are trying to make it to be but for sure would affect some users. If people have/are buying fully built systems then there is little cause for concern because they would be covered by their OEM's. Software guys, yeah go ahead and bang your heads.
All the new generation HDDs come with SATA 3 ports instead of SATA 2. There are lots of them in the market and the system builder,like say DELL, can easily choose to use these ports in new systems for connecting HDDs/Optical Drives.
we arent specifically talking about servers. See the article.
It would be interesting to know just what "PC system configurations that are not impacted by the design issue" means. Are there servers that only use SATA3? If that's the case, I could certainly see shipping the product for that application.
Is there any information on how many systems are not affected? and thus able to use this chipset version?
My concern is less that there can be imperfections in a product that Intel put out than they are in how it will be perceived. If it wasn't a problem then why did they ring the alarm to begin with? Now they are saying it isn't a big deal. Should I believe them now or then? If it wasn't a big deal then it should have just been an errata on the chip and a note in the design guidelines.
If that's the case, then perhaps Intel should give these chips a different part number and disable the affected SATA2 ports.
That makes for much better PR than "Intel resumes shipments of flawed chip."
Just saw that shortsighted and uninformed comment from one commenter below - only sata2 is affected !!! Almost everything on the market is sata2!! Don't tell me about tomorrows financials when Intel is reporting never before imagined profits. People in the tech and tech media industry are so shortsighted - this HURTS SALES! Anyone in the market for a PC now has to try to prove to themselves that the PC they want to buy or plan to buy doesn't have the flaw. But they won't be able to. This will cause postponed sales of PCs that aren't even based on Intel boards or this particular chip set. Besides that, does anyone other than me think that when one of my suppliers is reporting enormous profits that can also be understood as us customers having been ripped off?!?
Intel is making an enormous mistake. Every compiler for the last 10 years still has to have an option and every developer still has to make the choice of whether the compiled code should check for the FDIV flaw that Intel released in their Pentium chips years ago. These issues don't go away after the profit is reported to stockholders, they persist and cause a continual drain on the time, energy, and finances of people for decades to come. This decision by Intel is shortsighted and wrong. I remember the reports from that previous high profile mistake - it would only affect a very few people with a paticular type of computation. Wrong. It affects every developer who wants their code to be compatible. What software company wants a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of support calls coming in due to a hardware flaw that Intel failed to keep out of the supply chain? None.
I'm thinking the comment/reply by @eewiz below helps calm your concerns @LarryM9; at least I'd think it would. Regardless, it would seem to me that your angst would best be placed with the OEM's, requesting that the part be placed back into manufacture without changes, than with Intel. But again, there does not seem to be cause for concern in any account.