Monday, August 28, 2006

Merom (Core 2 Duo) Notebooks consumes 80 watts under load

PC Magzine tests some Core 2 Duo notebooks and finds Merom literally hot. Now, your laptop will have a more violent explosion.

Some people say 80 watts was measured when it's plugged into the AC outlet. They say, if using batteries, the Core Duo will clock down and save power. I find this argument unavailing. You can't argue that Core 2 Duo is fast at 80 watts, then argue it's low power at half the speed.

In a Tomshardware test, Turion 64 X2 frags Core Duo in most of the tests. The 2GHZ Turion TL60 frags the Core Duo 2GHZ T2500, 7 to 4. Toms also benched the two thin & light notebooks, the Turion TL60 of course frags the 1.86GHZ Core Duo T2400 (7 to 2). Moreover, Turion 64 X2 is 64 bit.

You should note that these reviewers are not very bright dudes. They can install and run benchmark programs, but whenever they try to figure out something themselves, they make themselves look like fools. Remember Anand's so called negative Opteron scaling? This is the case here. Toms' so called multitasking benchmark is simply stupid. He runs multiple different programs simultaneously and measures the final completion time. Obviously, the result of this test will be determined by the slowest single threaded program and OS scheduling algorithm is a major factor. The better way to do multitasking test is lauching multiple instances of the same program.

Some people keep saying Intel CPUs were not the cause of laptop explosions. They are wrong. Batteries won't explode by itself, therefore the explosion was caused by something else. If you take the batteries out of the notebook, the batteries won't explode--even Qanta airline folks understand this. If you take out the CPU, the batteries won't explode. Thus, the Intel CPU is a key factor in the explosion of notebooks. I have analysed this and my findings were conclusive. It was obvious that the Intel CPUs could not sustain a fire of several minutes, but it was the initial cause of the explosions. Some IBM folks pointed out that CPU heat is causing laptop to explode.

I have previously conjectured that the Core Duo CPUs melted and/or exploded, creating a short circuit and leading to subsequent explosion of the capacitors and batteries. So far, there is nothing to disprove this analysis.

Some readers have taken my last senetence above out of context. Let me summarize my analysis again:

1) Batteries won't explode by themselves.
2) Therefore, explosion was caused by something else.
3) If you take out the Intel CPU, the batteries in Intel laptops won't explode.
4) Therefore, Intel CPU is a neccessary factor for the batteries in Intel laptops to explode.
5) Furthermore, I have shown Intel laptops' max power consumption is large and its spike may be off normal operating parameters.
6) All other elements of the notebook are less likely candicates of the cause of laptop explosion due to their lesser current reqiurements and lesser power densities.
7) With others ruled out, Intel CPU is the only direct cause of explosion of Intel laptops.

Some readers brought out problems with G4 laptop fires. That only proves that the G4 is also bad. It doesn't proven Intel is good.

Get it?

As for the sequence of events, my analysis was that Core Duo first overheats, resulting a short circuit, then the large current and the failure of Sony batteries' cutoff mechanism result in secondary explosions.

How did a short circuit develop?

There was an INQ article showing a picture where the pins of an Intel CPU melted. Now, consider the situation where two melted metal pins, one ground and one positive make contact with each other -- that's a short circuit. The power on that short circuit is V^2/R, since R is near zero, the power is extremely large. A battery stores about 50WH, now imagine that much of heat releases in a fraction of a second, most of the heat is inside the battery. The result is catastrophic as evidenced by those explosions.

132 Comments:

Anonymous enumae said...

I am sorry if this comes across as a negeative, you should let go of the thought that the processor caused those explosions.

As I and others enjoy your biased opinions, since they make you think, some theories should die like the P4.

2:48 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"AMD, of course, has had 64-bit mobile processors for quite some time, with that company's Turion line. While AMD has been trying mightily to bring power usage down—with a fair degree of success—their mobile lineup has lagged in performance behind Intel. Core2 Duo will only serve to widen that gap for the time being."

This is the closing paragraph from the PCMag article you are referring to. So please stop lifting bits which suit you, ignoring the conclusions from the full article. Nobody is left with any doubt that Intel's mobile CPUs are superior to AMDs by whatever measure.

3:06 PM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

While AMD has been trying mightily to bring power usage down—with a fair degree of success—their mobile lineup has lagged in performance behind Intel.

Such statement totally lacked factual support and was entitled to 0 weight.

3:20 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such statement totally lacked factual support and was entitled to 0 weight.

Factual support: Turion ML-44 consumes 75 watts under load. http://www.silentpcreview.com/article300-page6.html

I'm sure you can find a performance benchmark somewhere where the ML-44 can beat Merom, no? At 75W (35W TDP!), it probably could blow a few Sony batteries itself, don't you think?

3:41 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Such statement totally lacked factual support and was entitled to 0 weight."

I thought everybody knew this, seems not.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/

3:42 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't read do you?

Again, this was a power test when the system was connected to A/C power. Of course, when disconnected from wall power, you'll get the full benefit of Merom's aggressive power management. PC Magazine ran extensive battery life tests in its Core2 Duo system reviews, so be sure to check those out for actual battery life numbers.

From the article.

4:16 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi guys, you need to compare Turion 64 X2 with Core 2 Duo (Merom) -- not Turion 64 or Core Duo (Yonah).

If we had such data today, I don't think we would be having this argument.

4:16 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi guys, you need to compare Turion 64 X2 with Core 2 Duo (Merom) -- not Turion 64 or Core Duo (Yonah).


You're right. And I'd wager that the Turion 64 X2 consumes more power than the single core version. That means it likely exceeds the 75W of the ML-44, as well as the 80W of the Merom. But I'm sure there is no factual support for this...

4:41 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the 75W of the ML-44

Guys, I believe that number was generated using a desktop motherboard.

We need to compare Turion 64 X2 against Core 2 Duo (Merom). If we had that data today, we wouldn't be having this argument.

5:07 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

I understand you have come to your conclusion, and I am not trying to be ignorant, but these are real questions that would backup your conclusion.

Had the Intel processor been part of the problem, why no recall on Intel processors?

Why is Intel not in the spotlight for having faulty processors?

Why isn't Intel helping pay for the recall?

Here is a link to Sony, and their statement... link

They say nothing about Intel.

I know you don't beleiev Intel, but maybe you'll believe Sony.

5:40 PM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Had the Intel processor been part of the problem, why no recall on Intel processors?

Intel processors are not recalled is no proof that there are good. DELL batteries were out there for years. We have proven that Intel CPUs were the cause of the explosions. What else do you want?

6:27 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous netrama said...

I think 'Core' and 'Core2' have been the stupidest brand name ever conceived. First renaming all the crap tp "Core" with a new logo and then calling the next gen as "core 2". The thing is for the avg Joe core and core 2 wont differentiate much..

The funny thing is , if the average Joe is good enough to understand the difference of Core and Core 2, then he might serously consider an AMD processor as well !!

6:51 PM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger pointer said...

Intel processors are not recalled is no proof that there are good. DELL batteries were out there for years. We have proven that Intel CPUs were the cause of the explosions. What else do you want?

we prove ... you means sharikou prove? :)

and Sharikou said in previous articla dual explosion sound is caused by the dual core ...

6:52 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yo Pretender...

Did you see the article about AMD's 65nm needing a huge voltage over boost to make speed. Now that is power for ya.

By the way when will you get it that fires have nothing to do with the CPU. Its battery defect/failure. Its well document.

Again and again you give Phds a real bad name for not noting new data and incorporating it into your data to draw the correct conclusions.

Another minor note, please publish the total power consumption of a laptop; CPU, northbridge, southbridge, Memory, display, harddrive, USB ports, etc. You'll find the total battery draw from the INTEL vs AMD CPU can't possibly be causing the fires..

A real PhD

6:53 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We have proven that Intel CPUs were the cause of the explosions. What else do you want?"

I want some other reliable sources that say Intel CPUs are the cause of explosion, not solely pro-AMD.

6:53 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

"We have proven that Intel CPUs were the cause of the explosions."

Did you physically examine the laptops?

Do you work for Dell, Apple or Sony?

If not then who is this we?

If you took the time to read the link, you would have read...

"The recall arises because, on rare occasions, microscopic metal particles in the recalled battery cells may come into contact with other parts of the battery cell, leading to a short circuit within the cell. Typically, a battery pack will simply power off when a cell short circuit occurs. However, under certain rare conditions, an internal short circuit may lead to cell overheating and potentially flames."

What more do you want.

Also wern't the batteries for Apple Power PC chips, how do you explain that?

I understand you want to blame this on Intel, but you can't.

6:55 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/

" Apple has determined that certain lithium-ion batteries containing cells manufactured by Sony Corporation of Japan pose a safety risk that may result in overheating under rare circumstances.

The affected batteries were sold worldwide from October 2003 through August 2006 for use with the following notebook computers: 12-inch iBook G4, 12-inch PowerBook G4 and 15-inch PowerBook G4."

Apple has had to recall mobile batteries multiple times in the past, from guess who, high quality battery makers Sony:P

7:00 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We have proven that Intel CPUs were the cause of the explosions. What else do you want?

If Sony's batteries were not faulty, then why would they use issue a recall of 1.8 million batteries - at a cost of many millions of dollars ?

7:09 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

We have proven that Intel CPUs were the cause of the explosions.

What is this we stuff? You, in some convoluted plane of logic, where you have confused causation and effects, have convinced yourself that Intel processors cause the batteries to explode. There is no shame in admitting you are wrong- in most circles it is considered a sign of intelligence (outside the neo-con movement).

Fact: Sony has owned up to the problem, at great expense to their shareholders, and with loss of face to a Japanese company, as the Japanese highly value quality.

Sharikou's conclusion: It must be a conspiracy, and Intel has convinced them to take the fall for a crappy processor (that has been demonstrated in numerous forums to have class-leading power consumption stats).

Fact: IBM G4 based laptops with the same batteries have demonstrated the same batteries, demonstrating CPU independence in the problem.

Sharikou's conclusion: Uh, we'll just ignore that fact because it doesn't jibe with my warped sense of causality. Maybe we can claim that Intel sent spies to a Freescale/IBM design team years ago, and, uh, had them sabotage the design with a battery blower-upper circuit. Yeah! That's the ticket.

Fact:AMD has very low penetration of the laptop market, and many of the implementations are lower end, and therefore may not have shipped with expensive Sony batteries. This may turn out to be fortuitous, but in no way does it demonstrate "superior" CPU design. It simply demonstrates that a statistically rare event is less likely to occur in a smaller sample size (~18% current share) than a large one (~82% current share). We'll leave the proof to the doc. He has demonstrated a complete mastery of statistics...

Sharikou's conclusion: AMD Turion frags exploding Intel crap. Dude!

I hope this passes the minimum IQ content test. If it helps, I can post a proof of why you are more likely to witness a 6 sigma event in a population that is 4 times larger than the population of totally kick-ass CPUs... but last time I tried to walk someone through, the Doc couldn't be bothered with the details. Can't say I didn't try.

8:30 PM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger Bruno Dieter Chan said...

If Dell or Sony were to say that the Intel CPUs were the cause of the overheating do you know what would happen? First, no one is going to buy any laptops with the Intel CPU in it leaving a lot of dead stock for everyone. Intel will not supply any cpus of any kind to Dell and Sony any more no matter how much they pay Intel. Intel will go bankrupt because of that issued statement. Intel will sue them both for making that statement (which will fail if it was true).

Instead it is easier for Dell to tell Sony, 'Let's say it's a faulty batch of batteries and we pay a bit more for the next bunch and the cost to recycle the current lot.'

8:32 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have proven nothing. The batteries are the problem, not the CPU. You do realise CPUs aren't the only things that draw power, right? GPUs draw power, RAM draws power, HDDs draw power, get it?

I don't know how anyone can take your blog seriously when you post stuff like this on other sites:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/02/intels-core-2-duo-t7600-mobile-processor-tested/

Haha. I hope Intel got rid of the Yonah explosion problem. Look at all the Dell Core Duo explosions. I hate Intel. Then again, I hope they added more explosives as the die picture seems to indicate; bigger must mean bigger bang. That way, they'll go out of business.

I hate Intel, Dell and everything associated with them. Haha. I can see the ad now. New Intel Core 2 Duo! Now explodes with less power. We should give Bin Laden a CONroe, Merom processor laptop. It would be painful. AMD's Turion 64 x2 is also faster and better in 64 bit code. Who wants a loser Merom when you can get AMD because it won't explode.


You clearly have a vendetta against Intel. You can't think straight, you are obsessed and your whole sorry existence on this planet revolves around denigrating Intel.

You know that, I know that, and everyone knows that. It's not exactly hard to understand your motives.

8:52 PM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Dr. Yield, my quick answer

1) A Sony battery won't explode by itself, the battery might be more prone to explosion, but the cause is Intel CPU. It's like you drop a glass onto hard floor and it breaks, the cause is you, not the glass.

2) G4 notebook had similar problems because it's as hot as Core Duo.

3) AMD has 18% of the laptop market, there were at least 20 reported Intel laptop explosion, 0 for AMD, instead of 3.6. Statistically, AMD is safe.

9:55 PM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Did you see the article about AMD's 65nm needing a huge voltage over boost to make speed. Now that is power for ya.

Intelers are self-deceiving. INQ reported that AMD 65nm currently needs 1.4v, and Intelers are rejoicing. Dude, Conroe runs at least 1.35v. The AMD64nm engineering sample showed up in Taiwan had a voltage of 1.25v.

9:59 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

could it be intel chipset problems ? i heard someone say that intel chipset is getting hotter and hotter ..

10:07 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

--->Did you see the article about AMD's 65nm needing a huge voltage over boost to make speed. Now that is power for ya.

to be fair to each others ,It is too early to judge that .... i prefer to wait and see .

10:10 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

3) AMD has 18% of the laptop market, there were at least 20 reported Intel laptop explosion, 0 for AMD, instead of 3.6. Statistically, AMD is safe.

Your above analysis assumes both populations are 100% Sony batteries, all impacted by the quality issue (which I don't believe they were). Faulty premise== faulty conclusion.

It would also appear that the Ph.D. is NOT in statistics. Taking your assumption to be true (and I'm confident it is not), you wouldn't expect 3.6 events in the 18% population if you had 20 in the 82% population. And no, I am not wasting my time to explain it to you, because you have yet to show a willingness to learn anything new that doesn't also support your world view. If you are truly interested, I'll send you a couple of links for good statistics primers.

As far as the rest of the troll response, of course there needs to be power drain to spark the failure modality. The processor is one part, but not necessarily the major part, of that power draw. Could be a bad VRM, decoupling capacitors on the boards, video cards, faulty video circuitry- but I'm sure you've analyzed all of those. Ultimately NONE OF THOSE ARE RELEVANT. Failure analysis of the battery has shown metal particles that don't belong, and that is your modality. Everything else is secondary. And yes, part of my dissertation was failure analysis in multiple industries, and I have done expert witness failure analysis work for multiple industries- so please don't tell me I just don't understand what I'm talking about.

10:14 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel will introduce its new "Tulsa" Xeon chip for high-end x86 servers Tuesday, the latest of several moves to reclaim turf lost to rival Advanced Micro Devices.

The new dual-core chip, designed for four-processor systems and officially called the Xeon 7100 series, has a price ranging from $856 for a 7110 model with 4MB of high-speed cache memory and a 2.6GHz clock speed to $1,980 for a 7140 model with 16MB of cache and 3.4GHz speed.

Last week, Intel said Tulsa boosts performance about 70 percent compared with its predecessor, "Paxville," but now the chipmaker is trying to steer attention toward a comparison with AMD's Opteron. Tulsa systems are 17 percent faster than Opteron machines on business database tasks and 42 percent faster on Java server tasks, Intel said.

AMD entered the x86 server market three years ago, and the competition has been fierce since. All four major server makers sell or will sell Opteron servers, and AMD has risen to claim 26 percent of the server processor market. Intel is fighting back with its "Woodcrest" Xeon for dual-processor servers and now with Tulsa for higher-end models.

"The 7100 really brings us up back to where want to be in terms of maximum performance," said Tom Kilroy, general manager of Intel's Digital Enterprise Group.

Tulsa is the last model to use Intel's all-but-extinct NetBurst architecture, which Kilroy acknowledged is "long in the tooth." But Tulsa still is a compelling design, he argued. "The 16MB of L3 (level-three) cache really helps position it for superior performance."

Cache is king
Indeed, cache is at the heart of the AMD-Intel rivalry. AMD's Opteron includes a built-in memory controller, while Intel systems require a separate chip that takes longer to fetch data. But including a large cache means that data is more likely to be readily at hand, so the memory controller isn't needed at all, Intel argues.

Intel's 65-nanometer process means more circuitry can be squeezed into a given surface area than with the 90-nanometer process AMD still uses. And even using the same process, Intel cache elements are smaller, said Pat Gelsinger, who co-manages the Digital Enterprise Group with Kilroy.

"My cache cells are about half the size. I got cache to burn," Gelsinger said in an earlier interview.

Tulsa also is the first Xeon to include "Pellston," officially called Intel Cache Safe Technology, which shuts off cache elements if errors are detected. Such reliability features are important in higher-end servers, Kilroy said.

But cache isn't free. It takes up real estate, increases manufacturing costs and makes a chip run hotter. The top-end Tulsa with 16MB of cache draws 150 watts of power running flat out, though slower models with 4MB cache consume only 95 watts.

AMD was quick to point out the power difference compared with its 95-watt mainstream Opteron chips. "We don't require customers to choose between high performance and great power savings," said John Fruehe, worldwide market development manager for AMD's server products.

More feistiness is all but guaranteed in the x86 server market, which generated $5.9 billion in revenue for computer makers in the second quarter, according to IDC.

Server makers are happy to have two x86 server chip suppliers.

10:20 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You really need to research the electrochemistry and risks of lithium-ion batteries. It's quite wrong to assert that they can't explode on their own. Lithium batteries are inherently dangerous. Good design, good processes, and good QC are essential to keep them from turning into firebombs. Cut the wrong corners and li-ions will explode if anyone as much as looks at them crosseyed.

Laptop battery packs should be able to withstand a dead short across the output terminals without violent failure. This will impose far more abuse on a pack's protection circuits than the CPU shorting out ever could. Any battery pack that can't survive a dead short across its terminals is an accident waiting to happen shouldn't be on the market.

The Dell exploding laptop problem is a problem with defective batteries. Nothing more and nothing less.

10:27 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Bruno Dieter Chan said...

"If Dell or Sony were to say that the Intel CPUs were the cause of the overheating do you know what would happen?"

Yeah Intel would be having a major recall, but in actuality, how much platform testing is done before these chips leave Intel?

How much time is spent to ensure this doesn't happen on there end?

"First, no one is going to buy any laptops with the Intel CPU in it leaving a lot of dead stock for everyone."

Alot of companies have had a recall, cars aswell, remeber Brigestone and the Ford Explorer?

Well are people not driving anymore on bridgestone tires?

"Intel will not supply any cpus of any kind to Dell and Sony any more no matter how much they pay Intel."

Sure and a monkey might fly out my butt, are you kidding, you must be so I will not even answer that one.

"Intel will go bankrupt because of that issued statement. Intel will sue them both for making that statement (which will fail if it was true)."

You sound like Sharikou.

"Instead it is easier for Dell to tell Sony, 'Let's say it's a faulty batch of batteries and we pay a bit more for the next bunch and the cost to recycle the current lot."

OMFG, are you kidding, it was somewhere in the area of a quarter of a billion dollars.

Do you believe that Sony is just being nice, as to not upset Intel?

You have been snagged, hook line and sinker by the Sharikou bait which is "Anti Intel"...lol

10:39 PM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger pointer said...

Instead it is easier for Dell to tell Sony, 'Let's say it's a faulty batch of batteries and we pay a bit more for the next bunch and the cost to recycle the current lot.'

Good try, bringing shame to boleh land.

Let's assume you and Sharikou's consipiracy theory is right. So, Dell, and Apple are doing some recall (costing money and reputation) and expecting similar thing happen again (and costing money and reputation). What a smart move ...

10:46 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

I completely missed this quote...

"The Apple recall only affects laptops that run PowerPC chips built by IBM Corp. and Freescale Semiconductor Inc. It does not affect Apple's Intel Corp.-based models, including the MacBook and MacBook Pro."

[Link]

10:48 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In a Tomshardware test, Turion 64 X2 frags Core Duo in most of the tests."

Did you actually look at the graphs? There was an OCCASIONAL benchmark where the Turion outperformed the Core Duo significantly (and many where it was outperformed by the Intel chip). You probably also didn't bother to realize on some of the benchmarks Tom's used a 1.83GHZ chip and compared it to a 2.0GHz AMD chip (not sure why they did this as other benches used a 2.0GHz Intel chip).

You also apparently didn't read the conclusion on the last page:

"However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all."

Maybe AMD will have better luck with bulldozer...

12:13 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thus, the Intel CPU is a key factor in the explosion of notebooks. I have analysed this and my findings were conclusive. It was obvious that the Intel CPUs could not sustain a fire of several minutes, but it was the initial cause of the explosions."

Funny how your selective memory kicks in....let's look at your previous posts on this topic:

"I conjectured that a 53 watt Core Duo's thermal protection failed and caused two explosions." (June 27 blog titled: Dell Laptop Explosion Not Related to Battery)

Now that you're saying the chip caused the battery to explode how does your previous "thorough analysis" of the facts - there were 2 explosions because it was a dual core chip hold up?

"When a short circuit developed, the heat built up within one core rapidly, because of the low thermal conductivity of SI, the other core had not reached exploding temperature...any way, there was a small and obvervable time lag between the explosions of the two cores." (this was one of your comments in that same blog)

Again this is your "exploding core" theory - how's that holding up now... Just out of curiosity perhaps you could enlighten your readers on what the "exploding temperature" of Si is?

And the piece de resitance:

"It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Two explosions, two cores, not the battery, what else? Capacitors may also explode, but the CPU should explode first."

Yeah, that about says it all...still think the CPU's are exploding?

You are right - you have analyzed this previously and your findings were conclusive. Wrong, but conclusive...

12:42 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"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."

Source: Shari-kook, comments section in June 21 blog.

Is this what you are referring to as your previous conclusive findings?

12:52 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Reading the original INQ report and the looking at the pictures of the exploding Intel notebook, it was obvious that the battery was intact. Once we ruled out the battery, the most probable candidate was the CPU."

I think the genius part of this statement was "it was obvious the battery was still intact".

Source: Shari-kook, comments in Jul10 blog.

Tell us again, oh wise one how you ("we") were able to rule out the battery and determine that it was obviously intact?

12:59 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have analysed it previously. Basically, the si melted and then vaporized, building up a lot of pressure which was initially contained. After reaching a threshold, the thing exploded."

Sharikou, June 27 (comments section of June 26 blog)

Your findings have suddenly, and conveniently, morphed into the chip (actually each specific core) exploding to the chip causing a battery to explode.... Do you have any ACTUAL data that the CPU is the trigger for the battery exploding and not any other electrical component in the notebook?

1:17 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, it looks like you are a bunch of AMD employees with official duty of Intel Bashing.

3:33 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In a Tomshardware test, Turion 64 X2 frags Core Duo in most of the tests."

My eyes glaze over and all credibility of the following text is thrown out of the window when I read those first few words. Tom is a known Intel pumper/cheerleader, no shock or surprise here. I think I'll take my chances with a review site like HardOCP for any kind of conclusive or somewhat non-biased analysis or comparison of computer hardware. NEXT!

8:35 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

Sharikou shaped the electrons to say: I have previously conjectured that the Core Duo CPUs melted and/or exploded, creating a short circuit and leading to subsequent explosion of the capacitors and batteries. So far, there is nothing to disprove this conjecture.

and earlier stated:I have analysed it previously. Basically, the si melted and then vaporized, building up a lot of pressure which was initially contained. After reaching a threshold, the thing exploded.

HA HA HA HA HA! That has got to be THE funniest statement yet. So, we now have established that your PhD did not require any comprehension of statistics or thermodynamics. If it required thermo, you would know that at standard pressure:

Si melting point: 1,412 C
Si boiling point: 2,878 C
Si heat of vaporization at mp: 3812 cal/g

If indeed the system was pressurized by the package (which would have fried at the above temperatures- molten Si requires a high temp ceramic to contain it), the melting/vaporization points would be even higher.

Sorry- your conjecture is evidence of low IQs of a moronic level. If this doesn't "disprove the conjecture", I'd advise you to buy a sturdy bumbershoot. There are pigs flying around, and I wouldn't want you to get crap in your hair.

Reference: http://www.icknowledge.com/misc_technology/Silicon%20properties.pdf#search=%22silicon%20properties%22

8:44 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou,

you should stop this posts.

You do one good, one bad. Keep just the goods!

8:46 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33999

you deleted your older post, so not sure if you read this.
but seems intel guerilla marketting is now targetting to inspire terror in AMD64 technology by claiming viruses only could target X86x64 cpu instructions

this site explain why thats not true.

8:50 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Did you actually look at the graphs? There was an OCCASIONAL benchmark where the Turion outperformed the Core Duo significantly (and many where it was outperformed by the Intel chip)."

Well I did and there is no 1.83Ghz in the first tests. Just in the Sysmark 2004 test where it loses almost all of them. I bet you didn’t see a problem that they used the same 1.83Ghz processor in the battery tests with an 80Wh battery on the Intel and an 54Wh battery on the AMD?

Some tests that you say AMD as lose where to the Pentium M 780 (2.26Ghz) where the T2500 also loose! Learn to read before post!
Intel Core 2 Duo loses all except the WM9 encoding!
And in the multitasking wins because it was biased. It was an obvious HDD win, not a processors win.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/page12.html

9:02 AM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

but seems intel guerilla marketting is now targetting to inspire terror in AMD64 technology by claiming viruses only could target X86x64 cpu instructions


Yes. I emailed INQ on their first report of the virus and asked them to correct it. That kind of report hurts INQ's credibility. It was a mere copy & paste of the vunet report, which took AMD64 as specifically for AMD CPUs.

9:09 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous netrama said...

I dont think the CORE 2 is any good as a mobile chip...
c'mmon assh*les Intel..please me make a chip that runs 2 weeks with out charging ..(on decent size batteries !!)
If I were a gamer ..needing that extra performance..I would be stuck plugging the adaptor in the wall socket. The second I unplug the adaptor ..the CORE2 will become a P-III Mobile chip...so is it any good at ll in the mobile space,..
Unless the new "blue Core2 " logo appeals to some morons..

Way to go Intel ....

9:12 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you take the batteries out of the notebook, the batteries won't explode--even Qanta airline folks understand this. If you take out the CPU, the batteries won't explode."

DOes it mean, if u take Intel CPU and put a AMD CPU in the laptop, it will still explode :)

You and your convoluted logic !

9:37 AM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

if u take Intel CPU and put a AMD CPU in the laptop, it will still explode

We have zero empirical evidence for that. All we know is Intel CPUs caused explosion.

9:49 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Wirmish said...

Sharikou, Ph. D said : "...there were at least 20 reported Intel laptop explosion..."

Only 20 ?

"The US Consumer Product Safety Commission now admits documentation on 339 cases of lithium and lithium-ion batteries in portable gizmos, "overheating, emitting smoke and fumes or exploding since 2003." - Wall Street Journal

"The Federal Aviation Administration has logged 60 such incidents in aircraft or airports since 1991."

"So far, manufacturers have recalled more than two million rechargeable batteries for mobile phones, laptops, portable DVD players and digital cameras, etc., since 2003. These include a total of 300,700 laptop batteries recalled since May 2005."

9:57 AM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Bruno Dieter Chan said...

enumae, have you say perhaps considered that exploding laptops are a 2 fold factor?

1. That the intel cpus are just barely in the safe zone in terms of power and temperature when in use with lithium-ion batteries?

2. That the Sony batteries are defective but with a high drain and super hot cpu increased their chances of critial failure?

Now legally, Intel cpus just barely passed the requirements. Sony batteries have not (maybe just barely not since we don't know how badly contenminated they were). That makes Sony liable.

But if we were to, now hang in there with me, run those defective batteries for 1 year on a Turion laptops and none blew. Well, wouldn't that make the Intel cpu the deciding factor for the batteries to critically fail?


***OMFG, are you kidding, it was somewhere in the area of a quarter of a billion dollars.

Do you believe that Sony is just being nice, as to not upset Intel?

You have been snagged, hook line and sinker by the Sharikou bait which is "Anti Intel"...lol***

So its 1/4 billion for batteries. Imagine how much it would cost to replace the whole laptop? After all, Intel sells their mobile platform not only just a cpu that you can slot in any laptop motherboard.

enumae, let me debate with you in the style that you love to conduct your debates in.

'OMFG i can't believe that you think that! You must be kidding right? I won't even answer that. You are a sucker. LOL.'

Thank you. Thank you. I here every night. Same time.

10:03 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"2) G4 notebook had similar problems because it's as hot as Core Duo."

No way! The MPC7447A's typical power consumption at 1,442 GHz is 21W. That chip is used in the 1 to 3 year old Powerbooks. No downclocking or any tricks. The max power is 30 W. Intel does not give the max consumption.

The numbers are given by Freescale and are mostly very reliable because the main users of these chips are embedded companies where 24/7 per 10 years is the usual reliability requirement. In desktops they work (overclocked) with upto 2 GHz with no problems.

10:23 AM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

enumae, have you say perhaps considered that exploding laptops are a 2 fold factor?

An event can have multiple causes. Of course, we know those big explosions were not directly the explosions of CPUs -- the CPUs don't have much payload. But, they are the cause, like a match sets a bucket of explosives off. It's more likely to find the maker of the explosives liable, it's common sense.

10:37 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some people keep saying Intel CPUs were not the cause of laptop explosions. They are wrong. Batteries won't explode by itself, therefore the explosion was caused by something else. If you take the batteries out of the notebook, the batteries won't explode--even Qanta airline folks understand this. If you take out the CPU, the batteries won't explode. Thus, the Intel CPU is a key factor in the explosion of notebooks. I have analysed this and my findings were conclusive. It was obvious that the Intel CPUs could not sustain a fire of several minutes, but it was the initial cause of the explosions.

Clearly you seem to have little grasp for physics. The CPU needs to be in the computer for an explosion to occur. Of course. That's simply because the CPU is the power load that causes the battery to discharge (ie. to be used) and the CPU is also required for the entire labtop to operate. The reason for the labtop explosion is note the CPU exploded first. It's that the battery's chemistry was contaminated with metal particles in production that caused them to short circuit and explode. Both Sony and Dell have confirmed this. This is the fault of the battery not the CPU and the battery would have failed regardless of the type of CPU used.

I really don't understand why you try to create controversy that doesn't exist when all evidence and physics points otherwise.

11:05 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Sorry if this wen't through twice...

Bruno said...

"1. That the intel cpus are just barely in the safe zone in terms of power and temperature when in use with lithium-ion batteries?"

Link that one for us, please.

"2. That the Sony batteries are defective but with a high drain and super hot cpu increased their chances of critial failure?"

What about the computer that was in the truck not being used?

Nice try though.

"But if we were to, now hang in there with me, run those defective batteries for 1 year on a Turion laptops and none blew. Well, wouldn't that make the Intel cpu the deciding factor for the batteries to critically fail?"

Bruno Bruno Bruno, thats an IF statement when we are dealing with actual statements from Sony, who has accepted responsibility for this...move on man.

"So its 1/4 billion for batteries. Imagine how much it would cost to replace the whole laptop? After all, Intel sells their mobile platform not only just a cpu that you can slot in any laptop motherboard."

Thanks for the info Bruno, Intel sells platforms, nice to know...lol

Your logic is so far fetched, do you believe its Sony's responsibility to take blame and accountability for Intel's faulty processors/platform?

Pointer said it perfectly...

"So, Dell, and Apple are doing some recall (costing money and reputation) and expecting similar thing happen again (and costing money and reputation). What a smart move ..."

Bruno said...

"enumae, let me debate with you in the style that you love to conduct your debates in."

Bruno really man I am trying to help you, move on, you and Sharikou are the last people on Earth that believe a conspiracy is surrounding Intel and the batteries, its over and Intel is not to blame.

Tropical storm Ernesto is coming... L8TR

11:41 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We have proven that Intel CPUs were the cause of the explosions. What else do you want?"

You haven't proven anything, considering that Apple's G4 notebooks have had problems from Sony also.

11:43 AM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous boytoreckonwith said...

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34016
check it out...maybe amd hasn't come out with a 65nm yet cuz they'll jump to 45nm and beat intel to it..."they're already supplying to customers." i wonder who their "customers" are??????

3:37 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

It would seem there is an effort by Dell and Apple to establish design and safety standards for lithium-ion batteries.

[Link]

How is Sharikou going to spin this?

4:18 PM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger pointer said...

Apple G4 laptop caused fire
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082900271.html

and with below information on the G4 which consume max 30 (less than AMD's, obviously)

No way! The MPC7447A's typical power consumption at 1,442 GHz is 21W. That chip is used in the 1 to 3 year old Powerbooks. No downclocking or any tricks. The max power is 30 W. Intel does not give the max consumption.

The numbers are given by Freescale and are mostly very reliable because the main users of these chips are embedded companies where 24/7 per 10 years is the usual reliability requirement. In desktops they work (overclocked) with upto 2 GHz with no problems.


so, conclusion is, AMD's CPU has much higher chance to caused fire (using the CONSIPACY THEORY of CPU causing fire) since it consume much higher power than the rest of system out there :)

4:24 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We have proven that Intel CPUs were the cause of the explosions. What else do you want?"



I'd like... the proof.

4:32 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The pretender said

"So far, there is nothing to disprove this analysis."

I will followup.

So far there is nothing to disprove Sharikou is a disgruntled INTEL hater who got fired for incompetence

So far there is nothing to disprove Sharikou has no PhD.

Now back to topic:

What does it matter it does 80 watt under load. There is nothing to disparove the benchmarks that the new Core2 wins every single battery benchmark compared to AMD's pitful Turion.

There is nothing to disprove that buy buying ATI and taking on billions of debt, cutting revenue by 50% due to price cuts, that AMD will be bankrupt in 5-6 qurters.

There is nothing to disprove that INTEL has refocused its huge army of engineers to turn out new architectures every year and swamp AMD with the huge resource, money that only INTEL can muster.

There is nothing to disprove that AMD stock will crash back to the low teens in Q4'07 while INTEL will soar to the high 20's

A real PhD that frankly you can't disprove either.

4:34 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

check it out...maybe amd hasn't come out with a 65nm yet cuz they'll jump to 45nm and beat intel to it..."they're already supplying to customers." i wonder who their "customers" are??????


Not quite: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060125comp.htm

Where the release on the Inq stated verification of library cells and embedded memory now, Intel announced functional 153Mbit SRAM + logic circuit verification 7 months ago. So much for a "leap ahead" on the 45nm front.

4:36 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Such statement totally lacked factual support and was entitled to 0 weight. "

"Intel processors are not recalled is no proof that there are good. DELL batteries were out there for years. We have proven that Intel CPUs were the cause of the explosions. What else do you want? "


Your statements and this entire blog have a weight of zero becuase you can not back up your claims. I expect more proof and a cleaner writing style from an "IT Journalist"

5:22 PM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Apple G4 laptop caused fire
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082900271.html


Dude, G4 causes fire does not prove Core Do does not cause explosion. Have some logic. Here, we concluded by clear and convincing evidence that Intel CPUs caused the DELL laptop explosion. Whether other CPUs such as G4 also cause explosion is irrelevant. You have to first accept the fact that Intel CPUs caused laptops to explode. You like to blame Turion, but the fact is, there is zero report that Turion notebooks explode.

5:41 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou wrote: "Have some logic."


Hee hee. That's a good one. "Clear and convincing evidence." Oh yeah. Keep it coming. Any chance you'll be on stage at Rooster T. Feathers some time soon (Sunnyvale comedy club)?

I posted proof that thermodynamically, there is no way to get "exploding" or molten silicon. You haven't refuted it, nor can you. Now go find a different subjesct with which to entertain me, court jester.

6:18 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are actually using Tom's Hardware benchmarking. Did'nt you dissed him as a paid Intel Pumper.. What is going on doc, Short memory? lies? bias? ...

6:40 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes. I emailed INQ on their first report of the virus and asked them to correct it. That kind of report hurts INQ's credibility. It was a mere copy & paste of the vunet report, which took AMD64 as specifically for AMD CPUs."

Hahahah... INQ credibility!.. It is like the easter bunny, fantacy!

6:43 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dude, G4 causes fire does not prove Core Do does not cause explosion. Have some logic."

Conclusion using Sharikou's logic. Apple explosions are due to Core Duo. Apple G4 explosions prove that!

If that is the same logic you used in your formula's for your PhD thesis, then I can understand why your professor rejected it!

6:46 PM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Bruno Dieter Chan said...

enumae - http://www.krischeonline.com/staticpages/index.php?page=macbook

I sure at about 95C over at the outside of the laptops I wonder how hot it is in the inside? How about you put one of those CD lappies on your balls for 2 hours? Let's see if Intel Mobile solution allows it to qualify as a laptop.

***What about the computer that was in the truck not being used?

Nice try though.***

Someone mention he mostly had it on standby mode as he would need to refer to the GPS and other map/location info he downloaded for his fishing trip.

***Your logic is so far fetched, do you believe its Sony's responsibility to take blame and accountability for Intel's faulty processors/platform?***

Let me ask you this; how much of Sony PC range now consist of Intel and AMD? Last I checked it was more than 90% Intel chips probably still 100%.

Why take the blame? Ask any famous boxer why he takes a dive once in while. It's all the matter of the right 'motivation'.

On a more serious note, don't let Ernesto blow you away. Sharikou lets very few Intel fanbois in here for us to play with.

7:22 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Sharikou said...

"You have to first accept the fact that Intel CPUs caused laptops to explode."

Lets all just believe Sharikou, it is clear he knows more than any of the people who actually examined the laptops... built the batteries... and the company who will be paying almost $250 million.

They just want to protect Intel, so they pay $250 million, nevermind that Apples laptop battery recalls were not Intel processors, there going to pay for IBM and Freescales faulty processors as well.

Hell they might even pay Intel money just for letting them pay the $250 million.

He also said...

"Have some logic. Here, we concluded by clear and convincing evidence that Intel CPUs caused the DELL laptop explosion."

Have some logic... You should take your own advice.

Accept the fact your conclusions were lacking all the latest information, facts and statements from the people much closer to the $250 million check which is going to be written.

7:53 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery

8:11 PM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger pointer said...

Dude, G4 causes fire does not prove Core Do does not cause explosion. Have some logic. Here, we concluded by clear and convincing evidence that Intel CPUs caused the DELL laptop explosion.

system with Intel CPU, with faulty sony battery caused fire
system with G4 CPU, with faulty sony battery caused fire.
And you concluded with clear and convincing evidence ... wow ... what a logic.

btw, where is my post of saying that you previously stated dual core causing 2 explosion sound. why delete it? you did say that right?

8:32 PM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I posted proof that thermodynamically, there is no way to get "exploding" or molten silicon.

You posted the melting points of Si. That's not even a proof. Understand? A proof is A, therefore B. You got A, where is your B?

9:06 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And where exactly is your 'proof' again Sharikou?

All I see are empty claims.

9:38 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Graham said...

Intel processors are not recalled is no proof that there are good. DELL batteries were out there for years. We have proven that Intel CPUs were the cause of the explosions. What else do you want?

Proven? Where is your proof? You observe that Dell PCs (which only have Intel CPUs) explode and therefore conclude that it must be the Intel processor at fault. I think this is more an indicator of your biases (a result looking for a cause) than it is of causation. I don't think you have at all proven that Intel CPUs are to blame here. It is more likely that Dell is not up to the task of doint good thermal design and the batteries (also recalled by Apple running in PowerPC systems) being prone to explosion. Since it has been shown elsewhere that TDP for Turion 64 X2s exceeds that of Yonah then we should also expect Turion X2 systems to be exploding soon. However, Dell doesn't sell these systems so maybe other vendors can actually design for heat dissipation.

At the end of the day, I don't think you have "proved" anything. I think you need to go back to basics Sharikou and look up the word "prove".

10:13 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Graham said...

Yes. I emailed INQ on their first report of the virus and asked them to correct it. That kind of report hurts INQ's credibility.

And this is why I need to post here daily... so you don't damage your credibility. Unfortunately I can only do so much to help you. You just seem to keep shooting yourself in the foot. What are you going to do when Intel is not bankrupt in 4-6 quarters as you have been saying since Q2'06? What will happen to your credibility then?

10:17 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Graham said...

Here, we concluded by clear and convincing evidence that Intel CPUs caused the DELL laptop explosion.

Really? Where is the link to this proof? If that is the case then Dell is recalling these Sony batteries unnecessarily. You should call Michael Dell immediately and correct him from making this horrible mistake! Sharikou only you can save Dell and Sony from this shame! Act quick! Dell needs you Sony needs you Sharikou!!!

Seriously... where is the "clear and convincing evidence". You better back these statements up with some damn good proof since your credibility as blogger (let alone an IT journalist) is at stake here. Unless you can demonstrate in a lab that an Intel Core Duo or Pentium M can burn a hole in a fully operational laptop case and that it is not caused by any other component that is on that laptop, you should then stop propagating this myth. The fact is, you don't like Intel and you will do/say anything to make Intel and Intel's products look bad. I think you need to get some psychological help because your behavior is pathological. I also wonder if Intel legal would not be interested in suing you for making unfounded libelous statements. I would love for you to be dragged into court to defend you assertions because no amount of facts posted to your blog seem to be able to change your tune.

10:28 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Graham said...

You posted the melting points of Si. That's not even a proof. Understand? A proof is A, therefore B. You got A, where is your B?

Sharikou teaching someone about logic? Isn't that a little like a retard teaching someone to read?

10:30 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Graham said...

It is clear that Sharikou has painted himself into a corner on his "Intel causes laptops to explode" meme. Now it is just good fun trying to watch him wiggle his way out of it. He is like George Bush when he gets caught in a lie... gets all blustery, repeats the meme over and over, and tomorrow will change the subject and hope we forget his original lies. How to cover up this lie? Just tell another one tomorrow!

Sharikou, you are truly a laughable, fraud. This is why I have dubbed thee Sharifraud! You're doing a heck of a job!

10:36 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Graham said...

Bruno Dieter Chan,

You fool! I don't even want to get into a point by point refutation of your ideas. You obviously think there is some conspiracy on the part of Apple, SOny and Dell to protect Intel from liabilty in exploding laptops. They are going to such great lengths, that Dell is going to take $250M charge against earnings to protect Intel. I think you need to take a couple deep breaths, read what you wrote and try to think about it objectively. Not as the AMD fanboi that you are but as a normal, thinking human being. What possible motivation would Dell have to protect Intel? Please come up with something plausible? Is Intel going to pay the $250M liability for Dell and somehow keep that off the books? That would be HIGHLY illegal for a public company to do that. Maybe Enron might do that not Intel. I think most AMD fans would be embarassed by your statemets. I would hope...

10:44 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Bruno Dieter Chan said...

"I sure at about 95C over at the outside of the laptops I wonder how hot it is in the inside? How about you put one of those CD lappies on your balls for 2 hours? Let's see if Intel Mobile solution allows it to qualify as a laptop."

LOL, thats funny.

Thanks for your concern in regards to Ernesto, it seems like it was all hype, its 1:15 am, and its pretty quiet out, the storm is about 75 miles southeast.

I think you meant Fahrenheit, 95°C would be extremly hot, but thanks for the link.

I understand that Intel chips get hot, but did you also factor in video card, ram, disc drive, hard drive when looking at those results?

Also the guy pointed out it was flat on the table unable to have any air circulating.

What are the temps of a Turion X2?

Well I looked it up, since I still have power, here, it seem the AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile TL-52 (1.60GHz/512KB) processor runs very hot up to 65°C, thats pretty hot for a mobile chip.

"Someone mention he mostly had it on standby mode as he would need to refer to the GPS and other map/location info he downloaded for his fishing trip."

As I understood it it was on the floor board (off) while they loaded the truck, had it been in standy where was this big surge and heat from the Intel chip?

"Let me ask you this; how much of Sony PC range now consist of Intel and AMD? Last I checked it was more than 90% Intel chips probably still 100%.

Why take the blame?"

Exactly, why pay $250 million for someone elses problem, just to have to do it again when the next bunch of batteries explode?

I understand Sharikou doesn't like Intel, but business is business and I can not believe Sony is stupid.

"Ask any famous boxer why he takes a dive once in while. It's all the matter of the right 'motivation'."

Someone has seen Pulp Fiction one to many times, J/K.

"Sharikou lets very few Intel fanbois in here for us to play with."

lol...I am only trying to get a point across, it is not Intel, it is the batteries.

Sony said it, Dell said it, Apple said it.

"On a more serious note, don't let Ernesto blow you away."

Thanks again :)

10:49 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bruno Dieter Chan said...

I sure at about 95C over at the outside of the laptops I wonder how hot it is in the inside? How about you put one of those CD lappies on your balls for 2 hours? Let's see if Intel Mobile solution allows it to qualify as a laptop.
"

You still haven't proved the heat comes from CPU. Neither Apple nor Dell uses AMD mobile CPUs. The valid proof should be a lappy with similar configurations and similar speed AMD mobile CPU, but running at lower temprature.

Besides, I don't like your insulting comments. fan-bois are just fan-bois, no matter AMD's or Intel's.

11:30 PM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

there is some conspiracy on the part of Apple, SOny and Dell to protect Intel from liabilty in exploding laptops.

Mr. Chan's conspiracy theory is definitely plausible. Losing $250 million is much better than losing $3 billion laptop business -- it's no brainer. You notice that DELL initially said the explosion did not seem to be caused by the battery? If it was battery only, then it should have been plain to the eye. What took DELL so long to reach such a conclusion? Clearly, there was something else.

12:52 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey sharikou maybe right when those Intel core duos are running they have large spikey current draws ideal for causing battery's to overheat and burn, and when they turn chicken for fear of causing fire they shut down without warning.? nice on Intel

check out here


http://www.macbookrandomshutdown.com/

2:23 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People has been discussing that AMD has TDP not lower that Intel. I would like to share you guys with my experience.

1. TDP
The Intel's TDP is not the same as AMD's TDP. Intel TDP means the energy consumption of TYPICAL load, while AMD's TDP means the energy consumption of MAX load.

2. my experience
I am using a latptop with AMD Turion 64 for awhile. It is my experience that I have my laptop less than 2% of time under full load(65C), while I have my laptop 98% of time(51C).

As the result, AMD should have a lot LESS(not alsolutely NO) chance of causing problem.

2:57 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, here's a little thought experiment to prove what's wrong with Sharikou's reasoning:
"God caused the Dell laptops to explode. He also manipulated the minds of the people at Dell and Sony to issue the battery recall, so that no-one would discover His handiwork. No-one can disprove me, therefore I am right."

Well, can anyone prove that my reasoning is wrong?

4:16 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Im still wondering why people like Enumae and others who definitively hate this blog keeps posting here..

abit addicted guys?
door's always open ya know.. its not like a giant AMD assasin is behind you with a shotgun forcing you to see what sharikou as to post.

6:17 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets comeback to Merom, In the Cnet testing Core 2 Duo appears to loose in some benchmarks to core duo with a lower clock rate. Cnet convienietly leave the issue and trumpet the triumph of Merom. How about that?

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6632285.html

6:19 AM, August 30, 2006  
Blogger S said...

"I have previously conjectured that the Core Duo CPUs melted and/or exploded, creating a short circuit and leading to subsequent explosion of the capacitors and batteries. So far, there is nothing to disprove this analysis."

Sharikou, you are a bunch of AMD employees with official duty of Intel Bashing on public forums. All your opinions are therefore totally one sided in favour of AMD. So far there is nothing to disprove this analysis.

6:43 AM, August 30, 2006  
Blogger Bruno Dieter Chan said...

Graham, lets take the Nano screen scratching for instance. Even though the Nano scratched easily it did not impair it on doing what it suppose to do which is play music and show pics. But the reaction was sever and Apple had a suit against it.

Say for the shake of arguement that the heat from running an Intel based laptop increases the chances of the faulty batteries to blow. And really the Intel laptops on good batteries won't blow. You think Sony, Dell and Apple who's laptop range is on the average 80% Intel powered is gonna tell the public, 'Hey Sony's batteries are a bit bad but with your hot Intel lappies there a good chance those batts are gonna go nova sooner than later?'

Aside from lawsuits from people that the batts did blow which Inq mention are in the 1000s, there are going to be people demending replacements for their current Intel systems, people seeking their lappies to be checked by the serice centres and people refusing to buy Intel laptops because they run so hot that they may blow the batts in them (unfonded fear).

In other words Graham Dell, Apple and Sony are protecting themselves by protecting Intel. Maybe, not so benifical for Sony but hell Intel can cut deals with Sony that shaves off cost of components for a few years which will cover back the 250 million. Maybe Dell and Apple will hand over some compensation for biting the bullet. Better than losing the whole product line.

enumae, if you got some friends with a range of lappies why not conduct the test yourself? Takes lots of pics and post the link here. Hell, might even change my mind. Ah, nope.. sorry like the commandments, set it stone :P But I do love pics.

8:35 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My favorite part of these posts is watching Sharikou attempt to dodge the posts he doesn't want to or to which he cannot respond intelligently... or at least intelligently enough for his standards. I commend Dr. Yield and Enumae for attempting to bring some type of sanity through logic and citations to actual evidence, but I believe that it mostly flies over Sharikou's head. I've been an AMD-only user for almost a decade now, but most of Sharikou's work here is poor at best.
However, I WILL attempt to use Sharikouesque logic to explain alot of this blog:

1. obviously, a young Sharikou in his formative days was enthralled by a large company starting with an I. The I company shot down his dreams of working for them when they realized his PHD was in early etruscan pottery.
2. Young Sharikou's hurt pride and anger leads him to support another great company, AMD.
3. Rationality and common sense fail to impress Sharikou to this day, leading to this blog.

Now, under Sharikouesque logic, I've just PROVEN all of those things. Why? I SAID them. Come on, Sharikou, admit you haven't done any testing, or even truly understand the physics/statistics required to discuss the subject. Either a) test these things and give us the scoop, which I would actually enjoy reading about, or b) admit it's your opinion instead of some hard-nosed fact. You're smart enough to get an PHD level degree, so you can come clean and it would actually help you're rep. I hope you have the guts to at least post this, and even more to respond.

8:36 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here Turion 64 frags merom in games
http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_XPS_M1710_Core_2_Duo/4505-3121_7-32036695-2.html?tag=nav

9:07 AM, August 30, 2006  
Blogger Bruno Dieter Chan said...

Interesting thoughts from the Engadget Podcast 085.

8:58mins - "Sony and Dell discussed the problem about their defective batteries last Oct. But they agree to wait and see what's going to happen."

Sounds more like, 'Let's see if those Intel lappies can really make them batteries blow.'

9:33mins - "Supposedly Dell knew about the defective batteries way back in 2004."

Either the old batts are blowing up or that the defective batteries were not an issue until the new Intel CD lappies were out.

11:26mins - "MacBook Pro is really damn hot. Lithium-ion has a much lower combustion point even if it is not a defective manufacturing process."

You know where am I getting at?

9:13 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

Can someone please prove to me how Intel chips are running at greater than 1412C?

Where is the energy required to heat it that high coming from?

If you find the source, is the power bus capable of transmitting that much energy to the chip?

If the power gets to the chip, what is containing the molten remnants of the chip so that it can build up some explosive force?

How much explosive force can be generated by <1g of Si?

How is the explosion triggering a short in the battery?

Can we solve the world's energy supply problems with exothermic chip failures?

Can Sharikou answer any of these questions (other than the last one) without relying on a leap of faith in logic? How about any of the other deluded individuals who also think this is a vast Intel-wing conspiracy?

9:27 AM, August 30, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

However, I WILL attempt to use Sharikouesque logic to explain alot of this blog.

You have taken my analysis out of context. Let me summarize my analysis again:
1) Batteries won't explode by itself.
2) Therefore, explosion was caused by something else.
3) If you take out the Intel CPU, the batteries in Intel laptops won't explode.
4) Therefore, Intel CPU is neccessary factor for the batteries in Intel laptops to explode.
5) Furthermore, I have shown Intel laptops' max power consumption is large and its spike may be off normal operating parameters.
6) All other elements of the notebook are less likely candicates of the cause of laptop explosion due to their lesser current reqiurements and lesser power desnities.
7) With other ruled out, Intel CPU is the only direct cause of explosion.

You dudes brought out problems with G4 fires, that only proves the G4 is also bad. It doesn't proven Intel is good.

Get it?

As for the exact sequence of events, my analysis was that Core Duo first explodes with 2 explosions, resulting a short circuit, then the large current and the failure of Sony batteries' cutoff mechanism resulted in secondary explosions.

9:32 AM, August 30, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Dr. Yield said:
If the power gets to the chip, what is containing the molten remnants of the chip so that it can build up some explosive force?

You asked a set of questions, we have seen proof before. There was an INQ article showing a picture where the pins of a Intel CPU melted. Now, consider the situation where the melted metal pins, one ground and one positive make contact -- that's a short circuit. The power on that short circuit is V^2/R, since R is near zero, the power is extremely large. A battery stores about 50KwH, now imagine that much of heat releases in a fraction of a second. The result is catastrophic as evidenced by those explosions.

9:45 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Anonymous said...

"Im still wondering why people like Enumae and others who definitively hate this blog keeps posting here.."

Who ever said I hate this blog?

I have said many time I enjoy this blog because it makes you think.

Also just because someone doesn't believe Sharikou doesn't mean they don't like AMD.

You may want to look up my old post before bashing someone as an anonymous little punk.

10:05 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Bruno said...

"enumae, if you got some friends with a range of lappies why not conduct the test yourself? Takes lots of pics and post the link here."

I am not sure I follow.

10:12 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Anonymous said...

"Here Turion 64 frags merom in games"

Good job, you compare a single card setup to an SLI setup...lol

Quote...

"If you're looking to play the newest games at the highest settings (and you're willing to stretch your definition of laptop to include a 15-pound beast), the dual-SLI graphics and slightly faster processor speed of the Aurora mALX will provide a superior gaming experience."

10:23 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

There was an INQ article showing a picture where the pins of a Intel CPU melted

The pins melted? That's not an exploding or molten chip. That's pins. Are you now claiming that it isn't the chip exploding, but rather the battery due to shorted pins?

Now lets explore causality (for the umpteenth time). Post explosion image, with lossy compression shows: molten pins and catastrophic failure of the laptop.
Can you demonstrate with the evidence at hand (the picture) that the pins melted first vs. they melted as a result of the fire from the battery? If yes, please walk me through the proof- pretend I'm as dumb as you think I am. Go ahead and hold my hand- I'm your eager student.

Assuming that you have now proved causality, let us take the analysis to the next level- the chip got hot enough to melt pins. What do you think would melt first- the solder joints that connect the chip to the pins, or the pins themselves? (Hint: solders have very low melting points)

I'm sitting on pins and needles waiting for your answer. I wish to bask in your intellect.

10:46 AM, August 30, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

That's not an exploding or molten chip. That's pins. Are you now claiming that it isn't the chip exploding, but rather the battery due to shorted pins?

Dude, the pins won't melt itself, the heat comes from the CPU. During normal operation, the heat in the pins is only I^2 R. Since I is only 50 Amps in normal operation, the heat is small. It's only when the chip's heat melted the pins, and they short, the current becomes huge.

11:52 AM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

Dude, the pins won't melt itself, the heat comes from the CPU. During normal operation, the heat in the pins is only I^2 R. Since I is only 50 Amps in normal operation, the heat is small. It's only when the chip's heat melted the pins, and they short, the current becomes huge.

Dude, that's my point. CPU can't generate enough heat to melt the pins. You can't prove it with the data you have shown. Intel has published (Google it) results showing 92A total current across the LGA results in a temperature of 93C. Resistance is on the order of mOhms. The only reasonable conclusion from the data at hand is that the pins are melted by the battery... and not the other way around.

12:13 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" enumae said...

Anonymous said...

"Im still wondering why people like Enumae and others who definitively hate this blog keeps posting here.."

Who ever said I hate this blog?

I have said many time I enjoy this blog because it makes you think.

Also just because someone doesn't believe Sharikou doesn't mean they don't like AMD.

You may want to look up my old post before bashing someone as an anonymous little punk. "

wow dear.. you're showing your huge e-penis lately..
internets is still serious business indeed!!!

you just lost quite a bit of creidibility by playing the "macho"
on this blog.

I'm sorry man, but you now look like a very young kid with way too much free time. :>

Yours truly

The punk Anonymous

12:33 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


3) If you take out the Intel CPU, the batteries in Intel laptops won't explode.
4) Therefore, Intel CPU is neccessary factor for the batteries in Intel laptops to explode.

Hey Shakira, If you take out the wire that connects the battery to the motherboard, the battery won't explode. Then it is that wire!! Yeah!!!

You are a bigger dumbass than you yourself realize! Joker!!

1:20 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sure you will appreciate this test: http://www.ppcnux.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6552

1:22 PM, August 30, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

If you take out the wire that connects the battery to the motherboard, the battery won't explode.

That's actually a very good point. But, you missed the key argument, we identified CPU as a neccessary factor, there were also other neccessary factors, which we already ruled out as the cause of the explosion. And CPU is the only remaining factor.

Our further analysis pointed out that a short circuit situation developed, however, because the wires won't move by themseleves and create a short circuit, we identified melting pins as a source of the short cuircuit. Then, tracing back, we identified the CPU as the heat source for melting the pins.

1:48 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Anonymous said...

"wow dear.. you're showing your huge e-penis lately..."

You need to move on...

Why not counter one of my post?

It would seem your ability is that you can make negative statements about someone as anonymous as to not be called out...

Good job, really, your showing your older and more credible than I am.

2:07 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" enumae said...

Anonymous said...

"wow dear.. you're showing your huge e-penis lately..."

You need to move on...

Why not counter one of my post?

It would seem your ability is that you can make negative statements about someone as anonymous as to not be called out...

Good job, really, your showing your older and more credible than I am.

2:07 PM, August 30, 2006 "
the only point Im making is, you're a bitter oldman who loves to struggle and show his "superiority" online by feeling the great thing, and thanks to you, I have fully confirmed that :D
besides, you're the one whos not moving on, you keep going the same "ohh noez.. shakirou is a dumbass"
or anyone who has a difernt view point as yours ( like MR. Bruno's ) is instantly considered "dumbass" by you.
thats not a mature talk.

3:12 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

Sharikou, please just drop this topic on Core Duo explosion - it doesn't seem to go anywhere.

To be honest, I think Sony's battery or Dell's motherboard is more to be blamed than Intel's Core Duo in these incidents. My understanding is that a well designed and manufactured battery should not explode even if short-circuited; plus, a well designed motherboard should have pulled the safty plug to cut off power under abnormally high current.

We already know that the CPU die (composed mostly of silicon and aluminum) won't explode. The packaging, however, could explode (or more properly 'burst') due to melting of aluminum (~660C) or other components (maybe Sn?). Now there are several possibilities:

1) The CPU itself overheated, melted/bursted its packaging, and created short circuit,

2) The CPU drew more current than expected, plus the motherboard not cutting it off properly,

3) Somewhere else on the motherboard failed and created excessive heat or short-circuit.

At this point we really have NO idea which is what actually happened. One thing is sure, though: in all cases above, a well-designed/manufactured battery should have protection mechanism to prevent explosion. The Sony batteries obviously didn't, and that is why I believe Sony is asked to recall their batteries.

3:18 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Reading the original INQ report and the looking at the pictures of the exploding Intel notebook, it was obvious that the battery was intact. Once we ruled out the battery, the most probable candidate was the CPU."

Sharikou, I'm still waiting for you to defend this analysis - if the battery was "clearly intact" as you have stated what was the component that exploded? Or will you finally acknowledge that your original analysis back in June/July was indeed wrong?

4:05 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Anonymous said...

"the only point Im making is, you're a bitter oldman who loves to struggle and show his "superiority" online by feeling the great thing, and thanks to you, I have fully confirmed that :D"

What superiority?

What "great thing"?

The only thing that I and others have done is to point out facts and statements, all of which came about after Sharikous conclusions.

Sony has its statement on their website stating it was the batteries, Sharkou and Bruno both believe there is a conspiracy.

"besides, you're the one whos not moving on, you keep going the same "ohh noez.. shakirou is a dumbass"
or anyone who has a difernt view point as yours ( like MR. Bruno's ) is instantly considered "dumbass" by you. thats not a mature talk."

I have not said Sharikou is a dumbass, nor Bruno, so I am not sure what your talking about.

4:14 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My question would be:

If G4 laptops from Apple are exploding, why the Core Duo laptops from apple are not exploding and are not being recalled if Core duo is as bad as G4 ?

9:07 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shrai-kook: "As for the sequence of events, my analysis was that Core Duo first overheats, resulting a short circuit, then the large current and the failure of Sony batteries' cutoff mechanism result in secondary explosions."

Actually your original analysis said the chip vaporized and that the "battery was intact".

Several Questions (which you have been conveniently been dodging for some time now):
1. If the battery was intact as you originally stated in your June blog, how is now also the source of the secondary explosion? (Or were you wrong in your analysis that the battery was still clearly intact from your observation of the pictures)

2. Did the chip vaporize/explode as you originally stated or did it just overheat? I don't have the vast technical background that you have but I think there is a slight difference between something overheating and something vaporizing? (I of course could be wrong and these two may mean the same thing?)

3. "Capacitors may also explode, but the CPU should explode first..." "...any way, there was a small and obvervable time lag between the explosions of the two cores."
So are you saying the CPU overheated or exploded? You had been stating that it exploded in the past.

10:25 PM, August 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a Merom with 80watt consumption will have a 'more violent' explosion, will the Turion with 65watt consumption have a 'less violent explosion'. That definitely means Turion is better :)

3:15 AM, August 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turion X2 getting fragged by Core Duo. What's going to happen when Merom comes along:

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49273534,00.htm
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,39024015,39277339,00.htm

4:07 AM, August 31, 2006  
Blogger "Mad Mod" Mike said...

Well I guess you went back to publishing everybody's comments, as I see a endless sea of retardation radiating from most of these comments.

7:17 AM, August 31, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I see a endless sea of retardation radiating from most of these comments.
Indeed.
I feel tired. Trying to educate idiots is far more tiring than doing creative work.

7:34 AM, August 31, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Sharikou, I'm still waiting for you to defend this analysis - if the battery was "clearly intact" as you have stated what was the component that exploded?

I need more information on that particular explosion. However, judging from the scale of that explosion, I would now think that the battery also exploded in secondary explosions.

7:39 AM, August 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shakira, if the problem of burning batteries is caused by explosions of Intel processors, then I need to ask you a few things.

1. How come every laptop maker using Intel processors is not having laptop fires?

2. If it is, as you claim, a case of Intel processors melting down and exploding and shorting the battery which then explodes, WHY are there not reports of processor explosions in other Intel based laptops, even when the battery does not explode? An exploding CPU is news all by itself and you claim the CPU is exploding and hot enough to melt the CPU pins all by itself. So where are the reports of bursting processors?

3. Why doesnt Sony save itself a quarter of a billion dollars and just put in a fuse?

For a brilliant PHD like yourself, these should be simple questions that you can back up with hard data and facts, not just your opinions.

4. You claimed Intel would lose money in Q2 and Intel was six quarters from a BK. When Intel is still around in five quaters and profiting billions, what will be your excuse?

12:40 PM, August 31, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

How come every laptop maker using Intel processors is not having laptop fires?

I am not sure the above assertion is true.

SONY batteries' fail safe mechanism seems to be not working, that led to big secondary explosions. However, I would expect initial explosion or burn down to occur with other Intel laptops not using SONY batteries.

12:57 PM, August 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I need more information on that particular explosion. However, judging from the scale of that explosion, I would now think that the battery also exploded in secondary explosions."

I find it funny that you now say you need more information on the explosion; when earlier the photo itself, and your astute analysis of it, was enough to for you to clearly conclude the battery intact and the explosion to be solely due to the processor and capacitors. I think your exact words were, "it doesn't take a genius to figure it out"

I guess this is as close as we'll ever come to you admiting you were wrong with your initial conclusion.

2:28 PM, August 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assume for one moment that Intel chips do explode. Why then only laptops? Why not desktops and servers? Have ANY reports come in of desktops or servers catching fire?

None that I have heard of.

Sharikook wrote:
"1) A Sony battery won't explode by itself, the battery might be more prone to explosion, but the cause is Intel CPU. It's like you drop a glass onto hard floor and it breaks, the cause is you, not the glass."

Huh? Laptops are portable and are exposed to a variety of environmental conditions, including being dropped, bumped, etc. If metal shards are in the battery, it is very conceivable that they could be moved during these events.

This is a battery issue.

Your credibility on this issue is ZERO.

5:03 PM, August 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou wrote:
"A battery stores about 50KwH, now imagine that much of heat releases in a fraction of a second. The result is catastrophic as evidenced by those explosions."

WOW that's a HUGE battery! On the order of a small NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. Yep it must be the battery.

Or did you mean 50wH?

LOL

5:10 PM, August 31, 2006  
Anonymous Graham said...

Sharikou said:

1) Batteries won't explode by themselves.
2) Therefore, explosion was caused by something else.
3) If you take out the Intel CPU, the batteries in Intel laptops won't explode.


This is a really stupid comment even by Sharikou standards. Of course if you take out the CPU the notebook won't explode. It isn't going to boot up, isn't going to draw much power, isn't going to do anything for that matter. However, if you left all things equal and put in say an AMD Turion X2 can you definitively say the laptop won't explode? You don't know that so this isn't proof. Also even if that did happen, it doesn't prove that the CPU is to blame, it could be poor thermal engineering that causes this.


4) Therefore, Intel CPU is a neccessary factor for the batteries in Intel laptops to explode.

Since you can't put in an AMD processor in these systems, we will never know if it is just a difference in processor. But since TUrion X2s draw 75W I don't think there is a chance that they wouldn't also explode in the same system with poor thermal design.


5) Furthermore, I have shown Intel laptops' max power consumption is large and its spike may be off normal operating parameters.

Link to this "proof"?

6) All other elements of the notebook are less likely candicates of the cause of laptop explosion due to their lesser current reqiurements and lesser power densities.

A bad cooling solution is at least as likely a "candicate" (learn to spell PhD) as the processor and probably a better candidate.

7) With others ruled out, Intel CPU is the only direct cause of explosion of Intel laptops.


And none of these points amount to a hill of beans... why? Because you never ruled out poor thermal design as a culprit. If Dell had designed a poor thermal solution (or more likely, Dell just cheaped out on components) on these laptops, that could be the sole factor for the laptops exploding. There are plenty of other vendors out there selling laptops with the same exact same processors but their laptops aren't exploding. So what you have not proven is that Dell isn't responsible for the explosions. You are quick to blame the processor and its manufacturer but don't consider the possibility that Dell does shitty notebook design and doesn't know about things like thermal envelope. I can't prove that the processor is at fault however, you can't prove that it did and you haven't ruled out other possibilities (such as poor thermal dissipation design). In a court of law your "proof" would go "poof" up in smoke. If you were litigating Intel in this case, I would say I have shown reasonable doubt in your argument. Your seven points of proof are meaningless. Get it?

5:52 PM, August 31, 2006  
Blogger N4CR said...

http://news.com.com/Intel+expected+to+cut+thousands+of+jobs/2100-1014_3-6111478.html?tag=nefd.lede

Sharikou right again... job layoffs...

'Efficiency'. Sounds like presshot transposed onto the company itself huh :p

6:01 PM, August 31, 2006  
Anonymous Graham said...

Sharikou wrote:
I need more information on that particular explosion.

I think you need more information on this whole topic... You came to a conclusion before you knew all the facts, then you constructed an argument with some "facts" thrown in to support your argument but in the end you don't know what the real answer is. However, you bloviate on a near daily basis that you KNOW it was those damn faulty Intel chips. That is because you are obsessed with bashing Intel. Why don't you just get a job at AMD and hurt Intel by performing really well for AMD instead of libeling Intel on a daily basis?

8:28 PM, August 31, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"Turion X2 getting fragged by Core Duo. What's going to happen when Merom comes along:

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49273534,00.htm
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,39024015,39277339,00.htm
"

You can't find a more obviously pumped results. Look at the "sponsored links" on the bottom of that ZDNet page. Weren't those Intel processors? The CNet doesn't even explain how/where they get their Turion 64 X2. Pathetic, both.

It'll be utterly simple to do fair comparison between Core Duo and Turion X2. Get one Compaq Presario v3000Z (Turion X2) and one v3000T (Core Duo), configure both the same, and benchmark them.

The Core Duo based version is about 5% more expensive - I suspect it'll have slightly better power usage for about the same benchmark performance (due to its much larger cache size). For real-world apps, I expect Turion X2 to beat Core Duo for the same price.

9:52 PM, August 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haha...that was funny about the 50KwH and the HUGE battery. I see the blog is now 50wH.

Sharikou wrote:
The power on that short circuit is V^2/R, since R is near zero, the power is extremely large.

When battery is drained at high current, it cannot maitain the voltage. V will drop rapidly. It is explained in Electrical 101 as the internal resistance of the battery causing the voltage drop.

(Showing off a little bit at Sharikou's expense.) Haha...

-Longan-

P.S. On a strange thought, if Sony battery is so good and has low internal resistance, the good battery is the cause for explosion!

Funny isn't it? If you don't want laptop explosion, you want bad battery, the one that cannot maintain voltage well when drained.

(Dell Laptop explosion mystery is now solved!)

6:52 AM, September 01, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Edward said...

"The CNet doesn't even explain how/where they get their Turion 64 X2."

Probably Dell if they can't say, just guessing.

7:00 AM, September 01, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

that was funny about the 50KwH and the HUGE battery. I see the blog is now 50wH.

I realized that I made an error in the comments and immediately corrected it in the blog. Long before you guys found out. It's fun to watch your guys trying to find the slightest oversight in my blog to attack my rock solid analysis.

The R in V^2/R in the case of a short circuit, it's apparent that R comes mainly from internal resistence of the battery, which means the heat is mostly released inside the battery, which caused the battery to explode. Wasn't that obvious? If you understood that R in that formula was the resistence of the wire contact, then the wire would be burnt off and resulted in an open crcuit, no heat would be generated in the battery.

I thought a lot of people had high school physics and I don't have to explain this.

In summary:
1) Intel CPU heat (from Silicon) melted the pins of the CPU and created a short cicuit.

2) The short circuit caused a lot of heat generated inside the battery and caused explosions.

10:37 AM, September 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again the Doktor holds to his premise: Intel chips are bad and 'explode', 'vaporize', etc.

Yet here is another report of an exploding laptop - a Dell C600, which is only of interest because I've owned and used one daily for 6 years.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/01/dell_laptop_combustion_uk/

It's a P3-based unit. So if Intel chips explode, and they have been 'explodable' since at least 2000 (when the C600 was introduced) why in SIX LONG YEARS has Intel not been found at fault?

But in fact, the owners of the unfortunate laptop concede that it was the battery that exploded (with cells bouncing off the walls), and that it may not have been an OEM model.

I'll also add in my 'expert' analysis. I have two batteries in my C600. One day, I noticed that the right battery bay was burning hot. But the left was fine. Machine was otherwise cool to the touch. I immediately powered down, swapped batteries from side to side and repowered the machine. Minutes later the left side was hot. Hmmm.

Deductive reasoning tells me that the battery is defective, and in fact when looking at EACH battery, the one on the left was made by guess who SONY. The cooler one on the right was made by SANYO.

No overheating, exploding, vaporizing CPU needed. Just a poorly designed/defective battery.

Why is irrelevant really. Except for the those such as the Mad Doktor who wish to pimp their beliefs based upon far-stretches of their imagination.

You really are a small man not to be able to admit your mistakes.

1:38 PM, September 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you take the CPU out, it kills the main circuit. Put that same battery in an AMD laptop and it will explode. If you take the battery out, it won't explode because there's no electricity running through it. You're seriously a horribly biased moron.

The Turions are also not high performers, this is well known. Find me a benchmark where Turions all-out own Yonahs and/or Meroms. Oh man, Meroms should be fun to do battle with, considering Yonah is already better, and everyone hates the Turion X2's.

You are one of the most blind people I have ever seen to think have of this stuff is true. Intel wins this round, AMD loses, and no amount of you posting your stupid comments on Dell's exploding laptops will change that.

Dell's laptops explode because of faulty batteries. Do you realize that you are the ONLY person, who has NO IDEA how Sony made those batteries, and how Dell made those laptops, who is claiming it's Intel's fault? How ignorant can you possibly be? You find ANY problem you can to blame it on the company, because, oh, you're smarter than their engineers. Right.

Dell's laptop batteries explode because Sony doesn't know how to make batteries. Or DRM. Or PS3. Or Betamax. Or Blu-Ray. Point is, Sony sucks, and Dell sucks, imo, but this is not Intel's fault, no matter how ignorant and whiny you want to be. You're like Al Gore at this point.

2:29 AM, September 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have previously conjectured that the Core Duo CPUs melted and/or exploded, creating a short circuit and leading to subsequent explosion of the capacitors and batteries. So far, there is nothing to disprove this analysis."

Wrong, both HP and Acer completed internal testing of their systems with the battery that Dell engineering specd and came away with the same conclusion - the battery is the issue. This is why both HP and Acer both passed on the cost reduced version from Sony. Dell was once again trying to save a penny and look at what happened.

1:59 PM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Markus said...

Another truck gets toasted

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Fla. -- A Florida father said his laptop computer caught his truck on fire and put his daughter's life in danger.

David Costello and his daughter were traveling through Hillsborough County in his truck on Monday. Costello said he turned on his Dell laptop computer so his daughter could watch a movie. That's when the computer stated smoking.

"It started smoking and, at that time I tossed it as far away from her as I could into the back seat," Costello said.

"He saw it smoking and it just, just got the whole truck on fire," said Kayla Costello.

Costello ended up crashing into a sign. He got his daughter out just before the truck went up in flames.

Dell Computers said the laptop in question is not the same model that had recently been recalled.

7:45 PM, September 06, 2006  
Blogger AubidadedBallad said...

Well what can we say?? Who can't have one of these electronics! With the way the world is spinning today we're only moving into an ever more technological world. But, nevertheless computers can't replace the human brain, and that was said years ago way before the iPhone came out. Now we have so many technological advances in this world that it is kind of selfish to say that even computers in today's time can't think AS quick or even QUICKER than a human mind! But, who's not ready for a technologically advanced future? I know I am :)
Sony Laptop Batteries

2:50 PM, April 13, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home