5 ms·

Literally addressed in TFA: "Intel has not halted sales or clawed back any inventory. It will not do a recall, period. The company is not currently commenting

by cmsj 2y ago

Literally addressed in TFA: "Intel has not halted sales or clawed back any inventory. It will not do a recall, period. The company is not currently commenting on whether or how it might extend its warranty. It would not share estimates with The Verge of how many chips are likely to be irreversibly impacted, and it did not explain why it’s continuing to sell these chips ahead of any fix."

ronsor 2y ago
They will, however, inevitably be sued.
- drdaeman 2y ago
  And end up with a settlement of a few dollars per claimant, which is drastically cheaper than a recall.
  - ronsor 2y ago
    Not necessarily. You're forgetting the lawyers' cut.
jerf 2y ago
They tried the same tactic for Ye Olde FDIV bug too, but the market eventually forced them to do full no-questions-asked replacements. And the FDIV issue is a number of steps down in severity from this issue; those CPUs didn't die. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug , for those who may be too young to instantly know what I'm talking about. It was a big deal at the time, and as you can see by reading it, less critical than CPUs actually dying. Read the timeline of disclosure and remember what you're reading in seconds occurred over a couple of months.
- NikkiA 2y ago
  The cc820 fiasco would probably be a more recent analogue, and it took Intel a while to admit fault there too; and some OEMs never accepted fault - looking at you Asus.
  - garaetjjte 2y ago
    There was dying LPC clock driver on Atom C2000, did they suffer any consequences for it?