[NEW STUFF] Intel LGA1155

Yet another :banana::banana::banana::banana:. :clap:

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g.../xxx/SB_C0.jpg

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g.../xxx/SB_C1.jpg

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...eak/xxx/SB.jpg

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...ak/xxx/SB1.jpg

:shrug:

We need... more numbers!!! :D

Is it backwards compatible with LGA 1156 or something, or you have an ES mobo as well?

lucky bugger mate

thanks for sharing :D

What about a HWiNFO32 run? That should support it pretty well.. Please use the latest Beta.

Anyway we can validate this? I could be wrong, not having looked too much into SB, but isn't 100 mhz too low for the bus speed? I thought it was the same 133 as before? Also what happened to the massive l3 cache?

This one seems pretty real.. All data indicate real expected values. Q0FM, heh?

I hate u JC, i was told to wait for 2 months to get my ES officially :(

ha nice to see you back JC and with good stuff as always. :D

Its not compatible with 1155 at all also this is very real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

Anyway we can validate this? I could be wrong, not having looked too much into SB, but isn't 100 mhz too low for the bus speed? I thought it was the same 133 as before? Also what happened to the massive l3 cache?

---

That made lol. This guy always posts 100% legit stuff. Anyway, it looks like eist is enabed? If so, a base clock of 200mhz means Intel is out for blood.

Edit: Nevermind, I'm still waking up.

Thanks for sharing JC! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

I could be wrong, not having looked too much into SB, but isn't 100 mhz too low for the bus speed? I thought it was the same 133 as before?

---

100MHz base clock is correct from what I heard.

Hopefully performance or price will be worthwhile or else it is garbage :) Pff, only 100bclk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

Anyway we can validate this? I could be wrong, not having looked too much into SB, but isn't 100 mhz too low for the bus speed? I thought it was the same 133 as before? Also what happened to the massive l3 cache?

---

This is a dual core variant with a cut-down cache.

100Mhz should be right,SB is supposed to have lower base clock.
@ the poster who somehow expected 4.8Ghz (via 200Mhz "OC" ?) : :p:

Intel is evil for changing their socket infrastructure AGAIN! Their CPUs only last one generation per socket. This is not helping the PC's cause. Gamers are going to consoles because of these type of expensive upgrades. Intel NEEDS to pick a single, robust socket infrastructure for their desktop PCs and stick with it through two or more CPU generations. AMD has done it with AM2(+) and AM3 and it has been very successful. QPI is like a better version of Hyper Transport so we all know Intel is fully capable of doing this with their existing sockets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

100Mhz should be right,SB is supposed to have lower base clock.
@ the poster who somehow expected 4.8Ghz (via 200Mhz "OC" ?) : :p:

---

With x30 multi 160 BCLK is enough for 4.8GHz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechromancer

Intel is evil for changing their socket infrastructure AGAIN! Their CPUs only last one generation per socket. This is not helping the PC's cause. Gamers are going to consoles because of these type of expensive upgrades. Intel NEEDS to pick a single, robust socket infrastructure for their desktop PCs and stick with it through two or more CPU generations. AMD has done it with AM2(+) and AM3 and it has been very successful. QPI is like a better version of Hyper Transport so we all know Intel is fully capable of doing this with their existing sockets.

---

Oh... not again. Please cut this crap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

With x30 multi 160 BCLK is enough for 4.8GHz

---

I was speaking about default clocks since he implied the eist and 100Mhz means the chip is somehow in "low clocked mode".
OCing manually will of course work pretty much the same as with the i7s today: up the bclock and multi(if multi can be upped).

BTW,this is the chip intel was comparing with Arrandale dual cores(SMT on) and showcased to select few some time ago.It was supposed to be ~20% faster than Dual core/4 thread Arrandale we have today.

Very Cool JC:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechromancer

Intel is evil for changing their socket infrastructure AGAIN! Their CPUs only last one generation per socket. This is not helping the PC's cause. Gamers are going to consoles because of these type of expensive upgrades. Intel NEEDS to pick a single, robust socket infrastructure for their desktop PCs and stick with it through two or more CPU generations. AMD has done it with AM2(+) and AM3 and it has been very successful. QPI is like a better version of Hyper Transport so we all know Intel is fully capable of doing this with their existing sockets.

---

Then gamers can go to AMD right? I mean they don't have to switch to console. For gaming, even last gen processors are enough, and as many have argued when it comes to expensive Intel cpus, the graphics card is more important for gaming.

give sum benchs :D

The base clock is pretty much irrelevant since its only the reference clock, more important are the available multis.

I hope there is still a multi for the pci-e clock or a extra clock modulator for the pci-e controller.

please confirm that

1155 cpu / mobo

not compatible with current 1156 cpu / mobo socket

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatRaceTin

please confirm that

1155 cpu / mobo

not compatible with current 1156 cpu / mobo socket

---

Quote:

---

Though similar, LGA-1155 and LGA-1156 are not inter-compatible, meaning that LGA-1155 processors will not work on existing LGA-1156 motherboards, and LGA-1156 processors will not work on LGA-1155 motherboards, either.

---

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-04-21/83a.png

Source

1156 owners are happy now (?)

Cool to see something new, but damn it intel another chip?

Why not just stick with 1156? Great way to confuse consumers once again. Intel is beginning to become as confusing as nvidia for the average consumer.