To some folks nVidia can't do any wrong though. If there is a will, there is a way and some folks will ship overclocking friendly Nehalem board IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by NH|Delph1
Printable View
To some folks nVidia can't do any wrong though. If there is a will, there is a way and some folks will ship overclocking friendly Nehalem board IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by NH|Delph1
That was me, and I'm not an Intel rep so do not take my statements as such. I am a computer enthusiast who happens to also be a manufacturing engineer for Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaskar
It boils down to the fact that Lynnfield and Havendale most likely will be doing all their clock generation and splitting from within the CPU package. There really aren't any good levers for the OC'er to change the reference frequency off which the CPU is based as there really isn't any reference frequency in either platform.
these are both done so that the platform uses less chips, becomes simpler, uses less power and costs less.
I think we should end this nonsense :
Quote:
Credible information we were able to obtain from industry sources suggest that rumors about Intel preventing users from overclocking Nehalem processors are false. From what we have learned, Intel has very healthy silicon on its hands. It appears that there are some challenges related to overclocking, especially in the memory controller area. However, it is unlikely that there will be anything that prevents overclocking of the CPU cores.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37824/135/
i can pretty much tell you with confidence that no one is playing with Lynnfield or Havendale yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Nehalem (Gainstown & Bloomfield) does overclock.
Lynnfield (4 cores with intigrated PCIe and 2 channel ddr3) and Havendale ( 2 core with intigrated graphics, PCIe, and 2 channel ddr3) probably wont.
This is not because they're "locked" It is due to the way the platforms have been designed.
Not sure with Lynnsfield. But Havendale would be a pain in the rear to OC i guess. Since the GPU part would also need OC besides the PCIe, IMC etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
But anyway, for those complaining. Sooner or later this will be the standard from everyone. AMDs fusion is Havendale in an AMD format. And I am sure AMD also will have a Lynnsfield and Bloomsfield variant.
System on a chip is the future!
Kick @$$ performance without overclocking?Quote:
Originally Posted by RealRedRaider
OC = KICKIER ASSIER performance :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I'd get an AMD just to play with, especially if they get cheaper. The reason I got an Intel this time around was specifically OCing, not "just" performance.
What does it matter if stock performance is better than overclocked performance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetickiller
funny how everyone screams and say they go back to amd, especial amd is heading the same way (fusion).
There's a difference. AMD is going to have HT clock which should be OCable regardless of where the PCI-E controller resides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
AMD and Intels designs will be identical. HT or QPI, same show. Or via another internal linktype. Most likely fusion will be stripped of HT since it serves no purpose for an ondie config. Plus the PCIe will be affected just aswell as it will on the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Blauhung,
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37824/135/
:confused: Something new at work here?Quote:
Taipei (Taiwan) - Hot on the heels of AMD's overclocking secret, we can reveal that Bloomfield and Lynnfield, key processors of Intel’s upcoming Nehalem family, will indeed feature overclocking capabilities for up to eight CPU cores (16 threads).
Don't put any blame upon Blauhung. There is a big difference between capability, and actual implementation.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Nothing is very clear as of now, even if ES chips and ES chipsets indicate differently. End retail SKU and their prices are all that matters, and those are not to be found or tested.
Let us wait and see, what exactly will happen.
I'm not blaming anyone, I just wanted to hear what he knew about this. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
I apologize then, and have misunderstood you :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Blauhung isn't an official representive for Intel, as he explained, and only gives his insights upon matters. One that I really appreciate, even though it is by nature limited :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
I'd trust Blauhung over a bunch of gossip hungry news editors. :up:
There will be none whatsover, under any circumstances...just like the latest anti-piracy measures stop software from being compromised and shared [/fud sarcasm]
the article also statesQuote:
Originally Posted by bowman
unless they are talking directly to the designers at Intel, no one has any Lynnfield silicon that they could be playing with. From the information available right now, the only way Lynnfield will OC is through unlocked multiplyers. Due to the inclusion of turbo mode, I'm guessing that each core has individually adjustable multiplyers that can be tweaked when unlocked. the problem still pops up that there is no refrence clock on the platform.Quote:
Credible information we were able to obtain from industry sources suggest that rumors about Intel preventing users from overclocking Nehalem processors are false. From what we have learned, Intel has very healthy silicon on its hands. It appears that there are some challenges related to overclocking, especially in the memory controller area. However, it is unlikely that there will be anything that prevents overclocking of the CPU cores.
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by turbox997
Thanks, wish you tell us more without breaking any rules (NDA or etc..):up:?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung