Intel still telling Yorker corker
Leap into the queue
IDF When pushed to tell us where its missing 'Yorkfield' wonder chips are, Intel's spin staff told us to "check our favorite e-tailer." W did, probing a number of stores, and found nothing but more delay notices.
Last month, a couple of hacks noticed that the quad-core Yorkfield chips were missing. At that time, Intel vowed that the Q9550, Q9450, and Q9300 were in heavy demand and that supply would arrive as quickly as possible. But here we are weeks later, and the gear is still hiding.
Bottom Line Telecommunications, for example, shows more than 1,500 back-ordered Yorkfield chips with just tens of chips set to arrive – at some point in the future. And, according to one alert reader, the number of chips scheduled for arrival have dropped in the past week from 700 down to 450. "All the ETA dates have passed," the reader notes.
The chips - should they choose to exist - are meant to run at 2.83GHz for the 9550 with 12MB of cache, 2.66GHz for the 9450 with 12MB of cache, and 2.50GHz for the 9300 with 6MB of cache.
As we understand it, Intel is still telling folks that a ton of chips are just about to flood the market, although it seemed to tell people the same thing a couple of weeks back.
A cynic/realist might suggest that Intel decided to take care of the server market first, preferring to sell more expensive quad-core Xeons rather than the Yorkies - or is it Porkies? In addition, the company seems to be facing more demand for the quad-core desktop chips than it expected.
As we understand it, people "are aware" of the issues and are trying to free up some fab capacity for the Yorkfields. The supply issue may improve in days or - cough - weeks. ®
Point taken. ;)
In my defence, when I see desktop I think home users and general office work, what you describe I think workstation.
Wankers and Bankers? I'm having trouble seeing a difference between those two at this moment in time. ;)
"Porkies" - class!
Future lawsuit from AMD in the making
Are they tearing a page out of AMD's book on how not to release new chips...
and yes, four cores is worth it just for cutting the video rendering that I do
Quad Core on the desktop? That depends on what you use your desktop for. Your average Wanking-and-Banking users don't need quad cores, obviously, but some of us will use whatever CPU you give us for VisualHub, Handbrake, Virtual Machines, etc. The more the merrier!
Pork Pies and chips
Love it. ;)
Apart from bragging rights, is there any point in having quad cores on desktops?
I have a couple of dual core boxes here and the only thing that appears to actually use both cores fully is the folding@home smp client.