The Sandy Bridge Preview (Anand)

Suddenly I don't feel so silly having just bought 1156. I'll believe it when I see it as far as sandy bridge goes, the numbers aren't all that spectacular as the core 2 upgrade was and it seems like fsb OC is dead. Not happy, as that's something I've stuck with Intel for, for the last 15 years. Sure it's gotten way better over the years [up from 20% to around 35% O.C], but if the K prices hold true they will be worth megabucks. In Aus the 875K was several hundred dollars more than the 860 for quite a long time. Unless Intel plans on selling K processors for a small amount extra, I doubt my next PC will be an Intel one.

From a marketing/business view it isn't such a bad idea for them to do that either. I doubt if even a fraction of total of chips sales accounts for the people who O.C. Think about the laptop, OEM and general PC markets. The average consumer doesn't O.C, so I don't see why we need to pay 2-3x extra for it. In the end I've upgraded my PC 2-3x more than the average consumer would, so no I don't agree with paying insane amounts for a K series chip.

While I think about it I'll see if I can list those upgrades..... and the overclocks ;P

Intel 386
Intel 486
Intel 586
AMD K6-2 400MHz --->500MHz = 20%inc
Intel Celeron 533MHz --->?733MHz = 28%inc
Intel Celeron 800MHz --->?1GHz = 20%inc
Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz --->2.4GHz = 25%inc
Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz --->3.6GHz = 17%inc
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz --->2.86GHz = 35%inc
Intel Pentium E5400 2.7GHz --->4.0GHz = 32.5%inc
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz --->3.4GHz = 29.5%inc
Intel Core i5-760 2.8GHz --->4.3GHz = 35%inc


Food for thought anyways.......
Just imagine if Ford or GM [Holden over here] made their cars so you could only get factory only upgrades. I doubt that'd go down well..........;P

nvm

Quote:

---

My point is Intel invented an artificial way to milk overclockers (which actually seems to contradict your statement that the overclocking market is tiny).

---

I don't have enough experience to question your technical points but this is wrong. I don't know at what proportions you would view a segment as tiny but let's just say Intel like other companies in other industries value this minority population. Higher margins or profits that can be made catering to their desires by not only introducing price barriers to the mainstream consumer; but also artificially creating differences in products that makes their niche buyer feel as if their product is more valuable.

Intel is just catering to the upper income bracket of the overclocking community and offering [tongue in cheek] "appropriate" overclocking options to the lower income bracket.

you know I've been thinking, could the lack of fsb overclocking have anything to do with AMD's position (aside the fact that Intel has saturated the market of course)?

What I mean is that by doing this, they can potentially increase their own profit margins, while almost giving AMD a small gift (being the mid to low end overclocking market). It wouldn't really be much to intel's final profit lines, but that could potentially give AMD some more market share and revenue to play with - hence preventing them from going bankrupt. As long as AMD doesn't go bankrupt, Intel can basically do whatever they want, and so having a guaranteed tiny percentage of the market could help in the long run.

Depending on how you look at it, you could either think it's plausible or outer space far fetched; but I happen to think that even if that wasn't the initial idea, it may have gone into the thought process.

In the end, it probably will give AMD some more sales, but nothing game changing for them.
But what it will do is it will give more money to intel, even if they lose few sales, they will take more in higher margins.
So i really think it was just about some more money (nothing big for intel too, but a few execs are gonna have a lambo or a porsche more).
Most People nowadays look like they like being ripped off, just look at apple.

the # of people who pay more * the price difference for that unlocked chip > the #of people who switched sides * the average price of the cpu bought

if that statement comes out true, intel makes money, if its false, then they might not have lost anything noticeable.

The enthusiast community is a small percentage of the overall market, and the overclocking market only a part of that.

Most people don't care about bclk overclocking - they get the performance they pay for - you can't complain that you don't get more than you pay for.

If you feel there is better value elsewhere vote with your cash and companies will be forced to adjust prices to market levels. But as I said the overclocking market has little effect on prices - it's only the positive word of mouth and reccomendations of the enthusiast to friends and family (the general consumer) that Intel doesn't want to lose.

It's not even as though overclockers are going to be losing out though, as even if you have to spend extra for an unlocked cpu you'll save the difference in the cost of the motherboard.

It's the motherboard makers that will be losing out - how can they justify £300 motherboards when you can overclock to similar levels with a £80 one?

Not quite , for high frecuencys a very good VRM will still be needed. I mean you will no reach 4.7ghz with 4-5 phases. May with 22nm process.
Still the future is with loses for MB manufacurers, i mean 22nm-14nm we will not anymore powerful VRM's so the motheboards will be cheaper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdan

Not quite , for high frecuencys a very good VRM will still be needed. I mean you will no reach 4.7ghz with 4-5 phases. May with 22nm process.
Still the future is with loses for MB manufacurers, i mean 22nm-14nm we will not anymore powerful VRM's so the motheboards will be cheaper.

---

Not really, with MSI boards you dont need more then 4, and even with other boards you probably dont need more then 6 or 8 a fraction of what we have now.

Today phases are just for the bling...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdan

Not quite , for high frecuencys a very good VRM will still be needed. I mean you will no reach 4.7ghz with 4-5 phases. May with 22nm process.
Still the future is with loses for MB manufacurers, i mean 22nm-14nm we will not anymore powerful VRM's so the motheboards will be cheaper.

---

So? if the MBs will be cheaper to produce than prices will drop, but what is important are the margins. If the margin is good, than they will not care what price they will sell, as long as it makes them money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d_s_willoughby

Suddenly I don't feel so silly having just bought 1156.

---

Yep, me neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d_s_willoughby

Intel 386
Intel 486
Intel 586
AMD K6-2 400MHz --->500MHz = 20%inc
Intel Celeron 533MHz --->?733MHz = 28%inc
Intel Celeron 800MHz --->?1GHz = 20%inc
Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz --->2.4GHz = 25%inc
Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz --->3.6GHz = 17%inc
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz --->2.86GHz = 35%inc
Intel Pentium E5400 2.7GHz --->4.0GHz = 32.5%inc
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz --->3.4GHz = 29.5%inc
Intel Core i5-760 2.8GHz --->4.3GHz = 35%inc

---

??????????? How the hell are you doing the match????

400mhz to 500mhz is NOT a 20% increase, but a 25% one. Again, 2.7ghz to 4ghz is nearly a 50% increase...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 570091D

FMA support is already wide spread in processors and code compilers. C99 supports FMA through the fma standard math library function, nvidia gtx2XX and new gpu's support it, amd's 5XXX gpu's support it, the cell processor, fujistsu SPARC VI, itanium.... BD will support FMA4 and Haswell will support FMA3. :up:

also, windows 7 sp1 will support AVX as does linux kernal 2.6.30 :D

---

For Evergreen series, only HD5800 and HD5900 series (RV870-based) support FMA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

I hope Intel will implement FMA in Haswell in the right way, keeping a throughput of two instruction per cycle (FMA+FMA or FMA+MUL/ADD). One FMA has no advantage over separated MUL & ADD (except a bit better accuracy), but some serious disandvatages.

---

What disadvantages?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

For Evergreen series, only HD5800 and HD5900 series (RV870-based) support FMA.

---

i stand corrected, thank you :up:



as for the whole overclocking thing, i look at it this way: intel has brought it's "extreme edition" cpu's to the mainstream market with the "k" series, and cut the price in half. yes, the rest of the line will be very restricted in terms of frequency changes, but unlocked and binned processors are now half the price they used to be (from the blue team, i know amd practically gives unlocked cpu's away). considering that i have bought EE processors from intel in the past, i'm happy that i might not have to pay so much to get what i'm looking for.

They only cost 1/4 of a EE. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

They only cost 1/4 of a EE. ;)

---

even better ! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prava

??????????? How the hell are you doing the match????

400mhz to 500mhz is NOT a 20% increase, but a 25% one. Again, 2.7ghz to 4ghz is nearly a 50% increase...

---

Maybe psychologically he only accepts his overclock as 100% instead of the stock speed. Or his maths could just be that bad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

They only cost 1/4 of a EE. ;)

---

thats only 2.5x as much as the current entry level chips you can push to the max, yay! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

What disadvantages?

---

Two operations A=B*C & E=F+H can be started on SB in the same cycle while on BD it can be started every other cycle (50% slower). It seems theres only one 256-bit execution port in BD according to techreport article.

That's as a percentage varied from the base clock, for people who like it the other way as follows.
Net increase from the base clock....

AMD K6-2 400MHz --->500MHz = 25%inc
Intel Celeron 533MHz --->?733MHz = 37.5%inc
Intel Celeron 800MHz --->?1GHz = 25%inc
Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz --->2.4GHz = 25%inc
Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz --->3.6GHz = 20%inc
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz --->2.86GHz = 53%inc
Intel Pentium E5400 2.7GHz --->4.0GHz = 48%inc
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz --->3.4GHz = 41%inc
Intel Core i5-760 2.8GHz --->4.3GHz = 53.5%inc

I don't use that method, but I swear this has come up before..... it's the whole % argument. More than one way of doing it, just depends on what the percentage is based on. Moving right along..... ;P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d_s_willoughby

I don't use that method, but I swear this has come up before..... it's the whole % argument. More than one way of doing it, just depends on what the percentage is based on. Moving right along..... ;P

---

There is simply not another way of doing the math. If you talk about increases you obviously wanna know how much the initial quantity has grown. On the other hand, if you are talking about decreases you wanna know how much the initial quantity has decreased. Such a simple thing...

Imagine you go to a supermarket and you read the following: "Today Heinz Ketchup comes with 50% rebate" and "Tomorrow Heinz Ketchup comes with 50% more quantity". The only way to understand those is, for the first, that you will pay 50% of the original price and, on the second, that you will get 150% the original quantity, and thats it.

Basically, what has happened is that intel has killed the hidden value in overclocking. I think if you pay more for an unlocked cpu, you won't be getting any additional value (caveat: FOR AVERAGE PEOPLE, obviously for people who run benchmarks for WR this need not apply). Intel has fixed the little bug where you could cheat them out of money by buying something slower and OC'ing it; now if you want performance you pay the appropriate price.

Some incredible performance in WoW...I wonder if that means a huge bump in games like Everquest II and Lineage II...the former of which is in need of dire frame rate help on the CPU side.

i5 2400 outperformed Phenom II 1090T in majority of benchmarks, despite lacking turbo. The difference should be bigger with the final i5 2400 because its going to support turbo mode. Not to mention that i5 2400 consume significantly less power at full load. And let us not forget than i5 2400 cost same as i5 650

So what is AMD response to this ? Is bulldozer coming out on Q1 2011 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

Basically, what has happened is that intel has killed the hidden value in overclocking. I think if you pay more for an unlocked cpu, you won't be getting any additional value (caveat: FOR AVERAGE PEOPLE, obviously for people who run benchmarks for WR this need not apply). Intel has fixed the little bug where you could cheat them out of money by buying something slower and OC'ing it; now if you want performance you pay the appropriate price.

---

Well, if I understood the story on Anand's, non-K cpus will have 2 multis above turbo, and several MHZ of "FSB" to play with. So you will still be able to get ~4 GHz from 3.1 GHz CPU. Not bad for 24/7 OC for sure..

..unless K CPUs work at 4.5 on air :mad: