Friday, 04 February 2011 16:54

Ivy Bridge 22nm works with H67 and P67

Written by Fuad Abazovic
intel_insidenew_logo

It's 1155 pin compatible, needs new BIOS
Intel finally came to its senses to use the same socket and make the 22nm Ivy Bridge pin and software compatible to Sandy Bridge x67 boards, and this happens to be the chipset that is affected with a huge embarrassment and SATA 2 recall bug. Now that is ironic.

The big news that P67 and H67 boards will support Ivy Bridge 22nm processors after BIOS and firmware updates is not as cool as it would have been if Intel didn’t mess these chipsets up.

Still there is a hope, as of April all boards powered with H67 and P67 will be bug free and with a BIOS update, they will be able to support Ivy Bridge 22nm processors. So once you get a functional bug free P67 or H67, you can expect to be able to plug Ivy into it and after new BIOS flash, they should just work.

This is what Intel told its various partners and this is the plan for now, but this bug can change a lot of minds and can affect just about any decision.

Intel also told to its special few that Ivy Bridge on Sugar Bay (6 series ) based platforms will require firmware and BIOS update and it also tells them that Q65, Q67 and B65 cheaper chipsets, won't support Ivy Bridge.

As we said, irony. Intel finally makes a good move and decides to keep the same socket and motherboards compatible with the future 22nm processors, only to have the platform affected by its biggest chipset recall in years.

Last modified on Friday, 04 February 2011 17:17
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+30 #1 loadwick 2011-02-04 17:25
All we need now is P67 and H67 to work and we might have ourselves a PC!!
 
 
+8 #2 Harry Lloyd 2011-02-04 18:14
What does the bug have to do with anything? Ivy Bridge is a year away, if not more. There won't be a single affected board out there by that time.

Anyway, it was really obvious. They only changed the socket for SB to disable BCLK overclocking. The chipset is pretty much the same, apart from integrating a clock generator, PCI-E 2.0 and SATA III.
It carries on the 23.976 Hz bug (H67) from its predecessor, so that says it all.
 
 
+5 #3 Marburg_U 2011-02-04 18:57
And z67?

edit:68
 
 
+9 #4 Nerdfighter 2011-02-04 20:40
Did they kill off Z68? Seems likely taking into notice the problems they've had with current chipsets. This is a nice move from Intel. After all Ivy is just a shrunk Sandy. But then again Intel is notorious for dropping platforms like they're hot.
 
 
-14 #5 milkod2001 2011-02-04 20:43
Quoting Marburg_U:
And z67?

it's Z68, they should have come with this chipset from the start

@ Harry Lloyd: Ivy Bridge will be available q3/q4 11 not later
 
 
+4 #6 TechHog 2011-02-04 22:57
Intel's never going to live this slip-up down, are they? Seriously, is constantly teasing about a mistake that has a 15% chance of making port fail at some point in the next 3 years really necessary, especially when they're taking full responsibility for it and handling it in the best way customers could ask for? My god, I wonder how you guys would be reacting if it were a more serious issue and Intel denied it.
 
 
+6 #7 dicobalt 2011-02-05 02:32
I was just about to build a sandy bridge when they did the recall. I knew there was a reason why I waited lol I plan to upgrade to 22nm cpu if they support higher clock speeds, no more of this adding cores business.
 
 
+2 #8 dicobalt 2011-02-05 02:39
Quoting Nerdfighter:
Did they kill off Z68? Seems likely taking into notice the problems they've had with current chipsets. This is a nice move from Intel. After all Ivy is just a shrunk Sandy. But then again Intel is notorious for dropping platforms like they're hot.


Nope it is still on schedule and will not be delayed. I read it somewhere but I can't remember where.
 
 
-13 #9 genetix 2011-02-06 03:47
Who the hell gives a good damn about 'Ivy Bridge' seriously. Intel in pouring crap after another and should of released update to LGA1366 already which is the only true way to go. We need a decent setups now not tomorrow. Same goes to AMD kick that bulldozer out now and stop the damn blabbering about it.

If Intel can't deal with triple channel memory then why are they even trying to build an controller to CPU they lost at 90's to AMD and they still are in quite little shoes comparing to AMD hyper-transport. Understandable that they want to build, but when it doesn't work with their chipset it's an uber failure.
 
 
-1 #10 genetix 2011-02-06 03:48
Same goes to these hyper-threaded cores. Understandable to advertise 'hey we got 128 cores where only 64 cores are real and try to make people to see that there is 128 cores while the sad damn fact is those 64 virtual idioticy can maybe take 60% of core performance over any scenario stable, if the physical cores are at 100% and I am here referring to ideal scenario of motherboard.

Just asking where the hell are all the REAL hardware to buy ? Why is the 32nm tech costing so much at LGA1366 and not released to LGA1156 in proper 4c manner ?

Intel just lost a huge amount of money one would think they wanna sell something instead of just speaking of new crap everytime they have a problem.
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments