Dell Laptop explodes: Intel Inside
Looks like a Core Duo inside.
Remember this? You could literally get yourself killed by being an Intel fanboi.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 6/21/2006 06:55:00 AM
Journal of Pervasive 64 bit Computing
Main Blog Page
Site Feed:
sharikou.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Blog Roll
Hot pages
sharikou.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Blog Roll
Hot pages
- Price War Strategic Analysis
- AMD and Intel Performance
- Intel's false performance claims
- AMD's Architecture Lead Persists
- AMD and Intel Performance
- AMD and Intel Architecture
- Bensley/Woodcrest and Athlon MP
- Bensley/Woodcrest is 2P only
- 64bit CORE Performance!
- Conroe Busted
- Capacity: AMD vs Intel
- Conroe's Impact
- AMD and Intel in China
- A Beautiful Picture!
- Temperature and System Reliability
- Google and AMD
- AMD's Grand Masters
- Intel's Predicament
- AMD and Dell
- NGMA Core and Colwell 6th Gen Arch
- AMD and Intel History
- The Tale of Intel and Anand
Analysis on IT trends and competitive strategies, with emphasis on micro processors, computer systems and networks. Based on latest news, backed up with real data, this site intends to provide a true and realtime picture of the fast changing IT landscape. This journal strives to be accurate on facts and sharp on criticisms. You may email your opinion to sharikou@yahoo.com or post comments here, be cool and intelligent.
About Me
- Name: Sharikou, Ph. D.
Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals. Any original content on this journal is Copyrighted, but it's free for non-commercial use. Any Trademarks used on this site belong to their respective owners. Some of the pictures are links. If there is any issue with the content of this site, please email sharikou@yahoo.com .
Previous Posts
- Woodcrest semi-officially fragged before launch
- Inverse threading for AM2?
- Pentium 4 has zero market appeal
- Intel choked distributors to death
- DELL: AMD64 the fastest growing notebook market
- Price war preview
- The AMD64 Rev G Mystery
- On DELL and AMD again
- AMD to chainsaw Intel
- Conroe getting really close to be busted
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Looks like a Core Duo inside.
Remember this? You could literally get yourself killed by being an Intel fanboi.
53 Comments:
Jesus christ! haha, ok i doubt that it was the CPU that caused that?, more like the batterie(Can't spell :P), dell have had problems before with laptops burning all of the suddon.. my laptop has a Pentium 4(desktop version.. i know, i am ashamed :( ) and it gets hot but it has not explodeded :D and is a couple of years old
I always used to doubt Intel's Power rating and TDP numbers ....given the fact that they lie in about everything else, why shouldnt they lie about this too.
And you cant blame those power supply/circuit guys for designing some under-rated supply after reading those specs.
Is there any reliable (not yet sold out to Intel :-)) third party lab results ??
I think that the procesor over heated the battery causing it to explode.
"I always used to doubt Intel's Power rating and TDP numbers ....given the fact that they lie in about everything else, why shouldnt they lie about this too."
I guess you've never seen a real power analysis of various processors?
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article313-page5.html
Everyone always makes a big deal about how Intel's TDP is a lie because it's only at 75% load. Well look at the numbers for yourself. The 31W TDP T2600 (which is the highest model BTW) only consumes 25.4W at full load on stock voltage. Actually less than a single core 2.2GHz Turion64 at stock voltage, I'd say that's pretty impressive for a dual core.
Even the oh so bad, hugely power consuming 930D Presler which has a 95W TDP at 75% load actually consumes 93.6W under full load. Now yes, that's a lot worse than a X2, but with that huge margin of error, Intel is far from lying.
I don't mind people being ignorant, but is it necessary for waste everyone else's time too.
If that explosion is even real it's not the CPU's fault. That is almost certainly a fact.
Intel not lying?
This site:
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/x6800vsfx62-11.htm
And this:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx60_3.html
Intel worst is at 178W, where is that value in their 130W maximum.
Show AMD at 110W maximum.
X2 dont pass the 100W.
And all without C&Q enabled.
"I would like to stress here that this processor supports Cool’n’Quiet technology. In idle mode this processor can slow down to 1.2GHz clock speed and drop the Vcore to 1.1V. In this case the power consumption reduces to 8.5W, which turns Athlon 64 FX-60 into a very economical CPU."
Look Intel at OC numbers:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/page14.html
"With a heavy load (100% utilization) on both CPU cores, the difference between standard clock rates and overclocking to 4.1 GHz is pretty dramatic. The resulting boost in performance comes at the cost of 216 W of actual power consumed!"
My analysis of the incident:
The Core Duo spews 53 watts, but the fan is designed for 31 watts only, the user was running some hefty apps in preparation for the conference, causing the CPU to overheat, however, somehow the thermal throttling logic failed, the CPU exploded, causing secondary explosion in the battery.
Sharikou, Ph. D... I have read some pretty far fetched stories here, and you love to bash Intel.
Is there anything flameable/combustable in a CPU?
I may be wrong but when a processor gets to hot, it will kill the processor, thus the operating system and then the computer.
The explosion could have come from pressure or built up energy. The batteries could have built an enormous charge and then exploded, but a processor... come on.
Obviously your phd is not in forensic science... just kidding.
Look at this video, The CPU can explode when overheated, such explosion can cause secondary explosions..
My analysis of the Hiroshima incident:-
Intel's Merom was transported back in time, and it was accidently turned on by an Intel fanboy, and as it actually consumes 25MW of power, caused a chain reaction in something stupid Intel engineers put inside their chips, and caused the disaster.
There really was no A-bomb.
What happens if that was a dell prototype for the turion 64 cpu? They use more juice than the core duos so thats obviously well within the realm of possibilities.
Thats my guess as to what happened.
I also believe it's a battery problem, but since it's a Dell notebook, you could get yourself hurt for being an Intel fanboy :P
I think you'll find that video is a fake, probably done with blasting plastic or something similar (you can see smoke coming from under the table, probably from the fuse of whatever explosive they used). They did the same thing with a Duron.
As for the incident with the notebook, it was probably because of a malfunction in the L-Ion battery's charging circuits. If you try to shove power into an L-Ion battery that's already charged, it'll ignite in not more than about ten seconds. Try looking up the regulations for manufacturing batteries at some point, they're very complex and demanding - and with good reason too!
Worst case here is that Dell is buying batteries from an unreliable supplier; I doubt it's anything to do with the processor.
think you'll find that video is a fake, probably done with blasting plastic or something similar (you can see smoke coming from under the table, probably from the fuse of whatever explosive they used).
Yeah. Someone said the picture of the exploding Centrino laptop was staged.
Sharikou, how in the heck did you ever get a PhD using logic like this? As far as logic and reasoning go for your conclusions, you are not even at the high school level where data analysis and fact based conclusions are concerned
Your blog entry suggests that you are reasonably confident the notebook was running a Core Duo. The Inquirer article does not identify the model of notebook (and CPU) other than being a Dell.
You could get in trouble for this. Watch out. I do enjoy reading your blog.
Google "Thermal Runaway". Batteries "explode" (well, get really hot really fast) all the time. Certain types are more susceptible to it than others.
Wet-cell aviation Ni-Cad batteries have been known to melt though and fall out of the bottom of the planes. Fortunately, automotive Lead-Acid types are pretty resistance to this, although they can explode because hydrogen gas may be released during charging -- This is a different phenomenon.
I think Nikon even sent out a warning about using off-brand batteries in their cameras after a few incidents.
Vibration, physical damage, poor quality control and charging/discharging beyond (usually far beyond) the battery's specs can all lead to this.
The only way I could see this being related to the CPU would be if the battery learned it was in an Intel system and committed suicide.
Your blog entry suggests that you are reasonably confident the notebook was running a Core Duo.
This was just an analysis based on the report, judging from the multiple explosions the notebook suffered. The two core could produce two explosions, then the chipset could have exploded, finally the battery. Also, Core Duo is more probable candidate due to the fact it has higher thermals.
What happens if that was a dell prototype for the turion 64 cpu? They use more juice than the core duos so thats obviously well within the realm of possibilities.
I can't comment on Turion, because I haven't seen a Turion doing what Centrino did.
Pentium CPU's thermal throttling function could fail, I remember seeing an INQ report on that. Also, when a CPU melts down, it should be made to cut off the circuit instead of creating a short circuit. However, judging from Pentium 4 explosion video, it seems when the Pentium fails, it creates a short circuit, causing an explosion. I think Intel should be able to easily make an improvement: make sure when the CPU melts down, the circuit is cut off.
As far as logic and reasoning go for your conclusions, you are not even at the high school level where data analysis and fact based conclusions are concerned
Frankly, I was scared by this exploding Centrino notebooks. Imagine you are on an airplane and there is such a big explosion. Both Intel and DELL should form a team to investigate this incident and find the root cause of the problem. Ignoring such a public safety risk is criminal. I think FAA should ban use of all Centrino laptops on airplanes. If FAA wants to ban Turion or others, it's also justified.
Intel notebooks overheat and have problems because Intel chips run hot. It is not uncommon to find Intel Centrino / Core Duo laptops that are painful to touch because all the heat.
Instead of banning laptops, a government agency could instead set a standard for computer temperatures, meaning a set of limits for the CPU, RAM, keyboard, bottom, etc. Maybe this agency would be the FCC and laptops would have to go through a more thorough test and approval process.
If you tried to take your laptop on a plane and your laptop had not passed FCC testing, it would be confiscated by Homeland Security and you would be fined $500 (or more).
More thorough standards with tough enforcement penalties are the only way to get Intel to stop producing crappy heat-monster chips. There has to be massive pressure on Intel for them to change.
"The only way I could see this being related to the CPU would be if the battery learned it was in an Intel system and committed suicide."
OMFG!!! I haven't laughed all day, what a way to start...LMAO!!!!!!!
"The only way I could see this being related to the CPU would be if the battery learned it was in an Intel system and committed suicide."
A possible chain of events is like this
1) Core Duo chip overheats and melts down the circuit
2) A short circuit is created, generating massive heat, which is contained by the metal lid, causing masssive build up of pressure and thermal energy
3) the CPU explodes
4) the huge current due to the short curcuit causes the battery to overheat, creating an unstable mix of chemical compound
5) the explosion of the CPU sets off the explosion in the battery...
The IEEE on Fake Electronics Parts in the distribution chain :
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may06/3423
Print Version
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3423
Intel processors are designed not to overheat. That is why there are thermal diodes and clock throttling. I think your speculation is without merit.
"Intel processors are designed not to overheat."
Is that a joke?
However, judging from Pentium 4 explosion video, it seems when the Pentium fails, it creates a short circuit, causing an explosion.
I strongly suggest the authenticity of the "exploding Pentium 4" video is verified before one makes further claims from this. A google search has some comments saying the experiment was faked, and that the same group filmed a Duron exploding (the purpose in both cases being humor).
Videos from tomshardware.com shows overheating AMD K7 CPUs (versions prior to integration of a shutdown or throttling feature) resulting in smoke from the CPU surface / thermal grease, but no explosions.
I strongly suggest the authenticity of the "exploding Pentium 4" video is verified before one makes further claims from this.
Watch the video, if those guys faked it, they were too good. It's entirely possible that the CPU exploded: the current and heat vaporized the silicon, but the heat was contained by the metal lid, pressure built up, led to an explosion. In tomshardware.com's Athlon test, the CPU burnt but didn't explode, because the die was exposed in the air, there was no lid to contain the heat.
"It's entirely possible that the CPU exploded: the current and heat vaporized the silicon"
Melting point (this means turning solid into liquid for many folks who are technically challenged on this blog) for silicon is >1400C - I think it is 1414C.
Then to "vaporize" it (meaning turn the Si into a gas/vapor) is an even higher temp...please get a clue before throwing out your ridiculous hypothesis...
Any guesses on how many other components would melt/vaporize before the Si chip did?
The incident is definitely worth noting here,
But it is disappointing to see Sharikou and others drawing conclusions from it
I had a chevy S-10 truck with those crappy Firestone ATX tires, and I routinely drive at 100MPH (160Kmph in my country). Three of them blew on me on separate occasions, and my truck never rolled!
The problem may be, like with ford, a combination of many crappy products. If Sharokou "Ph D" wants to pin it squarely at the intel chip, so be it. May we then remind him that AMD started to put termal proitections in their chis YEARS after intel did?
Man, grow up!
No one is drawing "conclusions" from this SINGLE incident.
There have been MANY reports of Intel Core Duo meltdowns and failures. Witness Apple's latest "MacBook" and how many people have overheating problems.
At least one person had their machine get so hot after 30 minutes, the screen got all scrambled and the machine stopped working.
Another person burned himself on the machine because it was so hot.
Intel is designed and built like crap. That's the beginning of the story. The end is laptops that don't work, overheat, are uncomfortable to use, and are safety hazards.
Hey, but Intel has a new font! Gotta love that retarded prioritization of resources... "maybe customers won't notice the burning if 'Intel Inside' is written in a different font..."
"Melting point (this means turning solid into liquid for many folks who are technically challenged on this blog) for silicon is >1400C - I think it is 1414C. "
When cooling fails, hot spots on the cpu can burn all way up to 1000C. But if so, the cpu thermal protection would have committed to failure.
2) A short circuit is created, generating massive heat, which is contained by the metal lid, causing masssive build up of pressure and thermal energy
yeah about that...
mobile processors are unlidded
"I always used to doubt Intel's Power rating and TDP numbers ....given the fact that they lie in about everything else, why shouldnt they lie about this too."
I guess you've never seen a real power analysis of various processors?
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article313-page5.html
Everyone always makes a big deal about how Intel's TDP is a lie because it's only at 75% load. Well look at the numbers for yourself. The 31W TDP T2600 (which is the highest model BTW) only consumes 25.4W at full load on stock voltage. Actually less than a single core 2.2GHz Turion64 at stock voltage, I'd say that's pretty impressive for a dual core.
Even the oh so bad, hugely power consuming 930D Presler which has a 95W TDP at 75% load actually consumes 93.6W under full load. Now yes, that's a lot worse than a X2, but with that huge margin of error, Intel is far from lying.
I don't mind people being ignorant, but is it necessary for waste everyone else's time too.
If that explosion is even real it's not the CPU's fault. That is almost certainly a fact."
Thanks for this post. This blog is full of people walking around with blinders and fingers in their ears. The assumption here seems to be that Intel dominates the market and makes A LOT more money than AMD. They must be cheating to do that. Well this puts one partisan back in his place.
"When cooling fails, hot spots on the cpu can burn all way up to 1000C. But if so, the cpu thermal protection would have committed to failure."
So explain to me again how a chip "vaporizes" below it's melting point? I'm just pointing out that some of the theories being thrown about (by folks with PhD's) are absolutely ridiculous...I'll refer you to the previous quote AGAIN:
"It's entirely possible that the CPU exploded: the current and heat vaporized the silicon"
"There have been MANY reports of Intel Core Duo meltdowns and failures. Witness Apple's latest "MacBook" and how many people have overheating problems."
And I can find more information about the MANY meltdowns where? Or should I just take your word for it?
"And I can find more information about the MANY meltdowns where? Or should I just take your word for it?",
I take it you are some lazy American who is a slave to television? Do I need to take out a tiny spoon, put a bib on you, and slowly feed you your baby food?
If you are old enough to go to the refrigerator on your own, I would suggest that you use the various Internet search engines like any thinking acting being would.
Intel's TDP is very misleading especially if the CPU has large cache. Being the greatest in area and longest in transmission path (R*C), a 2MB cache in heavy memory use could consume more power than the two cores combined.
The question now becomes, what's the cache usage for Core Duo's "typical" 21W TDP? MOST benchmarks don't even exercise more than a Meg memory, not to mention the "typical" usages on a 2MB/4MB cache! OTOH, in real world, upon a context switch (e.g., from Photoshop to Word then to Acrobat), most if not all of the cache will be flushed & loaded & flushed & loaded. So the power usage in the latter case could be much, much higher than that of "typical" measurements.
Thus I'm not surprised to see Core Duo's actual power consumption become much higher than its typical TDP due to such large cache symptom.
Core Duo's power problem was previously observed, but everyone puts that to OTHER causes - USB, motherboard, even driver (then they assert that THE FIXES DON'T WORK!). But AFAIK the problem doesn't exist in Dothan notebooks, whereas Apple and many PC mobos express it for Core Duos. If you look at AnandTech's Core Duo power measurement you find that deactivating one core only slightly reduces total power consumption. It could be because USB consumed too much (which was not even used during the test), but could also be because in deactivating one core didn't reduce ANY cache activity (unlike in Athlon64 X2, put one core to sleep also puts half of the cache to sleep).
Anyway... to expect websites like AnandTech report something scientifically correct might too much an ask. They probably will conclude for enough marketing money, but definitely not for sufficient experimental proofs.
Lesson: Based on how they express their product information, AMD is a far more responsible & respectable company than Intel.
"Lesson: Based on how they express their product information, AMD is a far more responsible & respectable company than Intel."
Interestingly, The Inquirer has caught whiff of this power debate.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32595
Essentially, both company's calculation methods are flawed, because they're both done to show off their technologies in the best possible light. Neither result is likely reproducible or completely indicative of real world performance.
What is interesting is that your "responsible & respectable company" creates it's own TDP numbers for Intel systems in comparison's by increasing Intel's numbers until they feel it fits AMDs comparison model. A truly "responsible & respectable company" would just measure their system according to Intel's methods instead of playing around with Intel's numbers. You can argue that Intel may be no better, but neither is AMD.
"What is interesting is that your "responsible & respectable company" creates it's own TDP numbers for Intel systems in comparison's by increasing Intel's numbers until they feel it fits AMDs comparison model."
Fair enough. Honestly, I have no idea how AMD comes up with comparable Intel numbers... and I don't know if I'd care as long as a 25W TDP Turion64 uses no more than 25W.
But in any rate, it is not "my" responsible & respected company, even though I think they are responsible & respected. There's really no need to personalize the discussion. I'm not in love with AMD like a fan, anyway. ;-)
What is interesting is that your "responsible & respectable company" creates it's own TDP numbers for Intel systems in comparison's by increasing Intel's numbers until they feel it fits AMDs comparison model.
Intel is irresponsible here. The TDP should be MAX power in the first place. But Intel cheats. Look, the CPU could run at max power, even if the chances are small, the chip could melt down if the design is not there to extract the max power. Marking thermal design power with an average is criminal. Intel's argument of total system power is a lie. We are talking about CPU max power here. Woodcrest consumes much more than 65 watts max, it doesn't matter how much your chipset or memory consumes, when Woodcrest dissipates 90 watts and your heatsink is only designed for 65 watts, you have a meltdown and subsequent explosion like that DELL notebook. AMD tells people that Opteron will consume 95 watts max and you design your thermal solution with that max. Tests show Opteron often consume far less than that. Why should AMD mark its chips down just the Intel frauds?
It's been generally acknowledged that Apple's MacBook Pros overheat not due to poor CPU thermal performance, but mostly due to substandard application of thermal paste, insufficient airflow and other factors. Plus, it's not like you hear a lot of complaints about Dell, HP, or other Notebooks overheating all the time.
DUDE!!!!!!!! did you EVER look where the smoke/flame are coming from? i guess not you ignorant hardcore amd fanboy, it sure looks like it orginates the from the battery and anybody who does not have a brain lodged in their head knows that intel does not make batteries.
core dou DOES NOT CONSUME 53 WATTS YOU SHIT. maybe under the absolute worst conditions, BUT THAT IS LIKE NEVER. if it did consume 53 watts, THEN EXPLAIN WHY NUMEROUS SITES STATE THAT CORE DUO HAS SUPERIOR (as in better) BATTERY LIFE THAT ANYTHING AMD. i am proud to say that i have a core duo laptop, sure it is warm, but all laptops are warm and it pushes 5 hours fo battery life.
CPUS CAN NOT EXPLODE. i've seen pictures of the heatspreader pop off, but that was only in EXTREME OVERCLOCKING CONDITIONS. do you realize how easy it is to STAGE that video? btw did you see the duron EXPLOSION? also the laptop batteries have multiple cells. one gets to hot and fail, adds heat to the next one, it also fail and so on.
also what is your phd in and from where? seriously. i think it is blindness, ignorance, stupidity, fanboyism, etc. but in reality most likely not. so tell us about your supposed education and maybe add some credibility to yourself (what a concept for you).
did you EVER look where the smoke/flame are coming from?
There is another picture showing the fire at the front of the computer.
Are you completely retarded? How could a dual-processor chip create TWO explosions? They're right next to eachother. If one exploded they'd explode together. Furthermore, if you look at the earlier pictures of the laptop before it was completely consumed, you'd notice that it was the kind of laptop that had mostly Celeron processors.
Stop being such a fucking retard.
"I take it you are some lazy American who is a slave to television? Do I need to take out a tiny spoon, put a bib on you, and slowly feed you your baby food?"
No, I'm so lazy I'll just take your words as gospel because you say so.
The earth is flat. Don't believe me? I'd provide a link but...
"I would suggest that you use the various Internet search engines like any thinking acting being would."
Typically when one makes a statement in the scientific world, it is up to that person to support it with facts and data and it is not up to everyone else to disprove it....
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32723
In a statement to the INQUIRER, Dell said its investigations had so far concluded that the incident, "involved a fault in a battery cell".
The computer maker said its investigation into the incident is continuing.
The new version of DELL story seems to be conflicting with
their previous statements. I wonder how the battery explosion at the back produce an initial fire at the front. Take out your notebook battery and see if that is remotely possible.
"The new version of DELL story seems to be conflicting with
their previous statements."
The Reuters link that you just included doesn't say anything about the location of the explosions. In fact it only mentions the battery issue which corresponds to the general consensus about the likely cause.
"I wonder how the battery explosion at the back produce an initial fire at the front. Take out your notebook battery and see if that is remotely possible."
In the Dell Inspiron 1100 that I used to own, the battery was located in the front-right bay. I think the 5100 shares this design, and I'm not sure about any other Dell notebooks.
From the Inq article...
"Dell fessed up to ownership of the exploding machine. In a statement to the INQUIRER, Dell said its investigations had so far concluded that the incident, "involved a fault in a battery cell".
But is Shari-fraud going to admit he was wrong? Nooo....
He claims feebly: "I wonder how the battery explosion at the back produce an initial fire at the front."
without knowing where the battery is on that particular laptop.
Will he retract his nonsensical article? No. Will he take me up on my $500 be that Intel won't be bankrupt in the next 12 months? No.
What does that make Sharikou? A sad, pathetic, little man with nothing more than a little axe to grind.
Mad Mod Mike said...
"Intel processors are designed not to overheat."
Is that a joke?
it is not a joke. Years ago, when Tomshardware did an experiment by removing the fan on the processor, the AMD's one 'smoked' and intel's one didn't. The reason was that at that time, Intel processor has Thermal protection mechnisme and AMD didn't. AMD quickly learned and come out with the similar mechnisme. This has nothing to do with the TDP. You and the owner of this blog should really go and learn before bashing. Else, it just brings embarassment to yourselve.
btw, i used the term smoked, not exploded. The CPU will not explode. the smoke was due to the epoxy that cover the die has a lower melting point and is a non-flamable material. In case you still do not understand, that's ok, as I do not expect you can understand.
Post a Comment
<< Home