Whats up with the tags for this thread?
"bendover, fudzilla, intel_loves_you_no_really, lga1160, lock, nehalem, no overclocking"
Whats up with the tags for this thread?
"bendover, fudzilla, intel_loves_you_no_really, lga1160, lock, nehalem, no overclocking"
I've arrived late to this thread, and there's quite a lot of information to digest on it (which is good, as we have plenty of long threads that contain no information whatsoever...)
If I've understood correctly, I think Intel's approach to the change in architecture should not be criticized but welcomed...
We really need a mainstream platform that's energy and cost (and with "cost" I imply manufacturing/disposal process as much as I do SKU cost) efficient. If that means that OC-ing it's out of the picture on it, that's more than acceptable collateral damage.
The power consumption has escalated out of control. In 1999-2001 I was building gaming rigs with 350W-450W PSUs. Now 700W it's not an uncommon figure, and there's a GPU manufacturer that talks 1100W like I talk free-range eggs.
As life of computer components becomes shorter and shorter, specially in the "enthusiast" market, it creates a big problem with recycling and waste disposal. A more simple layout should (although this not always holds true) result in a more simple recycling process.
Overclocking it's as energy inefficient as it can possibly be. It's a fun hobby, yes, but it's becoming too easy and too mainstream for comfort, to the point of system builders selling pre-overclocked machines (being the Q6600 the worst offender) marketing the increased performance, and blissfully forgetting the power waste.
Intel has a line of SKUs aimed specifically to our so-called "enthusiast" market. If we have to pay through our noses to build a rig based on such platform, great. It gives me the same warm fuzzy feeling inside as the idea of doubling the road tax of single drivers, or taxing the drivers of SUVs until they sink into the ground, specially if they use them for school runs or doing the weekly shopping. In fact I'd promote a specific tax for school runs, to cover the expenses of an underutilized, yet much more sensible, public transport alternative.
I've just ditched a monstrosity that sucked 745W from the mains @ load for a much more sensible 369W, and I feel that's the way to go forward. I no longer can play Crysis @30 fps, but it's a fair compromise for halving my power requirements. If Intel's take on the subject goes along these lines, and they reduce my energy requirements further while they start seriously talking about what we do with the (all too prematurely) EOL SKUs, they will keep my custom, even if that means that I can no longer call myself Xtreme.
When did this forum become exclusively about LN2 OCing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
That is not the same. You could still get a Single Core CPU and OC it. And if you really wanted a DC you could buy a P-D. Many ppl did just that, many will again. Afaik AMD was capacity constraint at the time. But enough about this. This isn't about AMD and once more you turned this into a VS thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Very true. Office PCs are not about who has the fastest CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
I don't see why anyone has a problem with this. I would think that most of us would be buying the Bloomfield platform anyway. It is just so much better. The only downside I can see is that it looks like dual core CPUs will not be supported on it, but that is not such a downside when you consider that Nehalem will be a native quad (and maybe octo) core. It should be able to power down the other 3 cores when they are not in use. Still there is the issue of dual cores typically overclocking a bit better than quads. Some of you seem to be forgetting that this is extreme systems, not budget systems. I am willing to buy a lower binned CPU only as long as it overclocks to almost the same level as the higher binned version. From what I have read Bloomfield is a replacement for X38/X48 not Skulltrail. While this may effect some mainstream users it is not going to affect enthusiasts much at all. It sounds like Bloomfield will fully support overclocking. I consider that good news.
mmm no intel oc in the 'cheap' range might mean a return to amd chips for their 'oc ability', but if mainstream/cheap intel nehalem still outperforms an oced amd then it's moot.
Ahh okay:) easy to make mistakes with thisQuote:
Originally Posted by bowman
I have no idea why some people think XtremeSystems = expensive high-end parts only. This forum is all about overclocking. I haven't checked the definition of the word "overclocking" lately but I doubt it incorporates: "use only expensive pre-overclocked and top binned high-end components".Quote:
About Xtreme Systems
Computing Without Limits!
Xtreme Systems was originally developed as an exceptional forum around the world to work as a distributive computing team to push hardware and software to the maximum limits (over-clocking). The network has grown from 100 top computer minds from around the world to several million users pulling in a average of over 1.3 million pages views per day (over 36 million per month) and 2.8 million user sessions per day. We are one of the fastest growing social networking forum based websites in the world, growing at a rate of 468% per year since inception.
Xtreme Systems, Inc is recognized as the #1 professional-computer gaming forums with a true competitive edge driven by the most powerful systems in the industry. Xtreme Systems is an IT system integrator dedicated to delivering innovation in the computer industry years ahead of schedule.
Xtreme Systems is comprised of computing teams, reviews, and news. Xtreme Systems has the top over-clocking teams in the world, consistently pushing systems and software far beyond expected limits. IT professionals, Gamers, and Developers look to Xtreme Systems for unbiased benchmark testing and written reviews, constantly testing future prototype hardware and software. 58 million gamers worldwide and 15 million IT professionals are discovering Xtreme Systems as the Forum of choice for now and the future.
http://www.xtremesystems.com/aboutus/
Very good points, I feel exactly the same for the most part, although I don't have a principle not to buy 300$+ CPU, yet I have never bought a CPU that cost more than about 200$.Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
I could just simply buy AMD for the hell of it, intel would lose my money, and it's not like intel is losing money on people overclocking cheap CPUs like some of you seem to think. Many wouldn't cough up 400$ just to be able to overclock, this I am quite sure of. I am also quite sure intel makes money from the E8400 and the likes, that many seem to buy 2 or 3 (or more) of to get the best overclocker, just because they are cheap enough. Myself and quite a few people I know who overclock think 400$ is too much for a CPU. So perhaps instead of spending around 200$ two or three times on upgrading CPUs like now, we'll simply buy a 150$ AMD CPU once, and leave it at that, and spend the money on something more worthwhile, like fine wine or somehting:ROTF:
$400 IS alot for a processor... i spent around that much on my old Q6600 when they first came out, never again the value dropped like a rock. i got my E8400 for $170, 4GB DDR2 1066 for $150 and my EVGA780i for $300. to get the same level (respectively to the new chips) it's going to be at least $400 for a low end chip (i wouldn't call an E8400 that does 4.6 benchable on cheap wc low end), $300 for 4GB of good DDR3, and who knows how much mobo makers will charge for their "enthusiast platforms" probably $300-$400.
also, how is this going to affect Nvidia and their chipset business? will they just put everything (SLI) on the southbridge? what about all those EPP memory modules?
Lack of competition drives into this. :p
I find it way more xtreme to take the low-cost machine to the very limits in terms of usability/price, than to do (SPONSORED!!) 6 hour Ln2 sessions twice a month with few too rich people.
Fine wine for all the world, it will be a better place.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodin
When I started overclocking years and years ago in the days of yore, it was all about making cheap parts good thru technical skill to amazing parts that we couldn't find or get. If you have the coin afford expensive CPUs then great! Overclocking is just a game like a puzzle for me not a religion or something to be fanatical about.
I do however like to see new technology, and I think it will interesting to see how this all plays out. Remember, far more money is to made in the business and avg. consumer market than the niche market of overclockers.
Before someones flames me for having AMD in my sig, I'll let you know I have a Q6600 based system as well that I'm no longer working on or using much, thus the Q6600 is no longer in my sig.
Neither Intel or AMD have been my "friend" nor do I expect them to be, they are corporations that have one goal at the end of the day: profitability.
'bout sums it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
I recognize that Intel will be releasing a higher end product for overclockers so I'm not terribly concerned about this generation... but my fear would be for the *next* generation. For example, if this is true and they were able to fully segment us, they will finally be able to put a price on exactly how much more we bring them in revenue (buying the more expensive parts with higher margin) and they'll be able to make a decision on whether we're worth supporting in the future.
If anyone thinks they look at overclocking and want to "support" us - this reminds me a fair bit of when they first locked CPU multipliers. Back then it was to "stop unscrupulous resellers from ripping off consumers" (which undoubtedly happened)... but look at the effect that's had on our community. Suddenly we can't buy a cheap part and OC it as well as a high-end part, we have to actually spend an additional $300 for the *same part*, just with a higher/unlocked multiplier. Sure they're binned differently (now at least, though it changes per release/referesh), but it's not like it costs them one red cent more to set that multiplier higher. Somehow we got used to multipliers being locked - and paying extra for it in our OC community - so now Intel's just raising the bar again, looking for more money.
This isn't an anti-Intel rant or anything... it's a pay-to-play world and frankly no-one should be surprised to see Intel (or AMD) trying to squeeze more profit from us.
looks like i'll be moving onto a new hobby
looks at golf maybe :D
got a course right next door.....wonder how much a set of clubs is and can they be tweaked a little :ROTF:
Around the price of the entry level Bloomfield cpu probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
sweetQuote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
i'm too scared to get back into fishing cause i spent some serious dosh on that gear and after seeing what my mates have been up to while i was into computers i only scratches the surface lol hahahah
First Nehalem's out the door are going to be the extreme versions, so most of this argument refers to are cpu's that won't be out for a year. AMD is hurting badly and needs more money per cpu. Do you think AMD is going to sell cheap cpu's that overclock or join Intel on the "pay to play" concept? Sure AMD and Intel both "court" this forums members to some degree, but no company gets ahead by giving performance away for free. One might even go so far as to say that AMD did it more out of desperation than being a friend to OC'ers.
Am I favoring any given side? Possibly, but I'm trying to say that 1 year from now is a long time in processors and that what range of cpu's is offered to each platform varies as much by competition as it does by technical ability. Intel has an entire platform dedicated to the enthusiast so they at least know we exist :) AMD does too, in a sense, so neither is ignoring us. A Q6600 (the darling that many made of it) costs $215 now at Newegg, and that same $400 cpu that no one thinks they want that will OC on a Bloomfield platform (by varying the PLL) is likely to be also $200 by the end of 2009. So relax. This is about what you will get and when you will get it, more than it's about whether you'll be able to get it or not.
The reason the E8500 is so cheap is because it's cheap to build. And from the above, if you stick that (being a cheap Nehalem) on a X58 platform you will be able to OC the bugger. Just can't put it on a Px5 Lynnfield and do it is all. And remember another thing. The traces may make the first mobo's more expensive, but overall bringing the IMC into the cpu is going to make the cpu more $$ and the mobo's cheaper. So be careful talking cpu prices because the mix of costs cpu/mobo/memory is about to shuffle some. The memory bandwidth is going to go UP on memory that is cheaper to make (1333), so even the memory cost may go down some (not just the fact that ddr3 is getting cheaper over time).
So the only folks who are going to be OC'ing Nehalems in 2008 and early 2009 are those who bought Ex cpu's. The lay of the land as to what mainstream cpu's will and won't is going to be partially based on competition, not just ability. Both companies are making products to entice this community and others like it. If they realize they have to offer affordable options to get the community going, they will (remember that was a good portion of the lure of the Q6600 was that when all the Quads were costing $1k+ the 6600 offered a more affordable option, which has gotten downright cheap over time).
I'm not downplaying people's right to criticize the costs of this hobby. I'm trying to inject a little bit of "the future we speak of is a long way away - and oc'ing isn't going away" into the thinking a bit is all.
$.02
the majority of the market doesn't even know what overclocking means.
maybe they're doing this because they have to prevent amd from dying off and facing many lawsuits for creating a monopoly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad1723
Then what brought C2D to it's prime? Do you think that People would use C2Ds that much if they clocked 0-5%, and A64s clocked 45-80%? Yes, overclockers are minority, but why does Intel support overclocking with C2Ds so much? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by fireice2
C2Ds are fast. C2Ds overclock VERY well. If C2Ds didn't OC, peopel would use OC'd A64s/Phenoms here. :P
I think you might have quoted the wrong guy here. I spoke for myself when I said I would pay $400.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I just doubt that most of the people on the enthusiast bandwagon will. I think that the fact that you can get so much for so cheap in the current pricing scheme is a big part of the reason why the enthusiast market has grown so big in the past two years. It also allows unsponsored overclockers a less expensive way to find good batches, take risks and go for high scores.
I am glad that there will still be products geared toward overclockers. Whatever, either way it'll be an exciting time with the new chips.
no, Core 2's ipc is so much stronger than k8s that even if k8 could oc to 3.5ghz consistantly people would still just buy an e6850 and trounce it, perhaps people would use phenom due to the 9850's well pricing and decent ocing if you couldn't oc the q6600, but since you can...
According to that(fastest CPU), no one would use Phenoms/A64s right now, which is false. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
All price comparisons are valid, if not, we would not have to shop;) I didn't say that as a battle cry or something but just an example, maybe I should have stressed that a little more.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
If Nehalem is what Intel says it is performance wise then $400 will seem like a very good deal. It's not like we never paid $400 for a performance part before is all I meant=P That includes CPU's from Intel and AMD.
Hmmmm I have a different take on this. I personally think that by using the PLLs they are going to use that as a lynchpin against motherboard manufactuers by forcing them to pay some sort of royalty in order to get overclocking motherboards.
Specifically to me this sounds like a means to effectively lock out nvidia from the enthusiast market and force them to give SLI liscenses to Intel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
Shakes head:shakes: The Enthusiast market grew and gained ground because all computer parts got or became cheaper, not just CPU. The first Pentium 100MHz Processor I but clearance was reduced from it original price of $1,364.36 or something like, I jumped for joy since I only paid $500:eek: $450 for my next AMD processor was steal. The Market crash brought in the largest influx of Newbies.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
Folks in it for Bang for the Buck, cheap wise, aren't shopping for Nehalem until late 2009 in the first place. Most news printed so far has made that clear. Folks shopping Bang For The Performance Buck will absolutely look at how much they can get out of Nehalem Overclocked or not. The point is that Bang For the Buck has more than one meaning. Looking at most folks' systems, $200 isn't close to the average Enthusiast's budget!
Your average enthusiast statement is what I took issue with. Look at the Launch price of the X2 as the cheapest X3800 sold for about what Nehalem shipped at. Then also look at the first Intel Quad Core prices? $200 wayy unrealistic for any even mid ranged Quad Core. Again, they're talking Nehalem QUAD CORE, not Dual Core and since YOU SAID $200, that's ridiculous! If most enthusiast saw $200 as being close to average, AMD's X2 wouldn't sold at all=P I wasn't trying to start trash AMD rant!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Quad-Core Processor - Retail $214.99
Free 3 Business Day Shipping
(Not available in HI, AK and PR)
In Stock
I think Bloomfield will be so much faster than anything else that 400$ for it will be considered a steal.. And we have yet to see the pricing and the binning of the mainstream Nehalems.
I see your point that over time the prices will probably take a similar dip. It's just that we've had it so good for the past couple C2D years and the AMD years before that... got spoiled maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Wait and see I guess.
Nice...Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
*looks at sig*
So, you think people like me don't belong here?
Well, I have a vmodded gpu with water, running +50%, and even though
your hw and it's speeds are not displayed, I'd guess it's a higher percentile
than yours. Am I not an overclocker because I'm not buying the expensive
stuff? :rolleyes:
Dude, put your fanboi-glasses down and try to look at this a bit more
objectively. However you want to twist it, this is a lame move.
I hope there will be some way to circumvent this lock.
yeah; there certainly have been a lot of very expensive chips prior to now..intel 'X's amd x2's, etc etc etc.; no surprise that first nehalem bf chippies will be at a price premium, as they will be in front of anything else on the market.
there will be a value gem in the line up somewhere down the track i'm sure; there always is; i dont mind waiting, patience is very very cheap.:wasntme:
very:p:
no you said if core 2 couldn't oc everyone would be using amd cpus, which just isn't true. No matter who's in the lead, there's always going to be fanboys and people who can't afford top performance as you pointed out, but also I was simply stating that core 2 still has a huge advantage over k8 even if it couldn't ocQuote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Please note, my system is running at stock speed. I have a plain Jane 3870 (may add another later) and not SLI. The only 3rd party device I have is a Ninja Cooler leftover when from when I was overclocking. I'm going for and got a pretty quiet system without water cooling!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank M
Why am I here then? Because I love to see others overclock. It's like watching a drag race. Then getting my standard Pick-up and driving home. Oh, the Sig was copied only for its wise crack-back, NOT the subject LOL!
I'll keep my Fanboi glasses on thank you very much. I say that because you sure as hell will not take off your Green Goggles LOL! For you to try and say I twisted something that is a plain FACT is a joke and it kills your credibility:down: I'm not twisting anything here!
Q6600 sold for less than the X2 3800 did right up until the Conroe launched. They seemed like a Bargain after folks got used to across the Board High Priced AMD X2 price. No, we sure as hell aren't talking prices after INTEL forced AMD to cut them. Or are you one of those hopeless Fanbois who thinks AMD loves you and did you a favor?
C2D spoiled us, not X2 that is the point. I'm sorry but if Intel's C2D was dud, AMD would try to sell us the bottom rung processor at the 3800+ May 2006 levels. Maybe the other guy would rather forget but most of us haven't. I'm NOT the only one who bitc#ed about AMD's Price structure. Nehalem earily models will cost more but last thing I saw, Intel wasn't shipping the low end models until later. So it is not like we're talking low-end for $400.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
Overclocking. I got preached to by Experts when I tried to just say "guys the FSB isn't that bad for the Desktop. It is flexible ......... I still laugh when I think about one line from that thread. "I don't think you understand" LOL. Locked or Not, Nehalem is a steal compared to other processors that shipped in the $400 range. It remains to be seen if the other processors can overclock high enough to out perform it and that's all I tried to say from the start. In that old thread I told guys "the FSB is more flexible". Hell, I'd love a Dual core model and still run 4 threads:)
Well if that's the case then bring it on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
You guys missed the point, sure the procs are gonna cost 400 at entry level, but the mobo's not having to include the NB will be reduced in price.
Plus DDR3 will come down in price as well.
Also, all these prices are release prices. They are bound to fall after a few months and I'm sure most of us could hold on to our C2D setups for a bit longer. I mean how many of you were really considering upgrading the day of release? Plus you have to factor in any last minute issues that will arise, which are bound too, and the initial performance gains.
That along with the mainstream segment they are targetting, with their millions of dollars of marketing r&d that gives them the pricepoints and performance numbers they need to meet... makes a hell of a lot of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
Intel is not a person.
Its a company responsible to shareholders, and their only concern is to keep a good public image while making as much money as possible, the latter being more important than the former.. remember they are not your friend, its fun to personify them, and indeed they want you to ascribe human traits..but they are a company that is making money, and if you view their decisions with that in mind, this is a very wise decision on their part. Amd is no different, just intel happens to be in the drivers seat atm with tech and marketshare.
If you can't unlock this, I'm probably staying with my q6600 for a little while longer.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if intel locked overclocking. Early back then you had to use pencil mods to close points on AMD's athlon xp's.
Remember, you're a laughable minority here at this forum, and furthermore, you hardly make up any significant fraction of sales for intel. It's the hard truth - intel doesn't really care about any of you. And it's probably going to stay that way.
I wonder what's the basis for this rumor.IMO , OC Nehalem will be very similar to K8/K10 , nothing different.
Intel knows the power of the enthusiasts , the bad press they can bring and sure as hell won't upset the status quo.
Dude, this argument of yours is pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
First you are saying I don't belong here while your system is not even oc'd.
Then you accuse ME of AMD-fanboyism. Strange, I don't see any AMD or
AMD/ATi products in my system.
Were dual-cores expensive back then? Sure; but were there other options,
too? Of course, there were the SC Athlon64s and the s754 Semprons, which
were the cheapest platform then and still oc'd - and there were also the
ancient ones, like the Barton I had up to my current system, and in the
single-threaded world, it still performed fine enough to get by. So this
argument of yours is beside the point. The point is that this is not a nice
move by Intel and would piss off a large group of oc'ers.
Having to pay $400 just for an oc-able cpu? That's a bit too much, if that
turns out to be true, then I'll stay with the cheaper Yorkfields or I'll go
back to AMD if they can bring out something worthwhile.
Donnie27 does not get the primitive idea of relative pricing.
Remember, Intel themselves dug their "spoiled" market with the Q6600 $200 pricing, and sub $200 E8k/7k pricing.
and if the release a nahalem based quad which performes better then A Q6600 for nearly the same price, 98% of the "spoiled" consumers will be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
I have to admit, if a nub like me can turn a 2.4ghz C2Q into a 3.2ghz folding powerhouse for $200 and a bios setting change, we've definitely been spoiled. I would be surprised if it continued with Nehalem, but I definitely wouldn't complain if it did.:yepp:
So give use a link showing Intel will be shipping low-end first? Low-en processors have never shipped first from Intel or AMD=P So we're supposed to believe now that Low Nehalems will all of a sudden change that trend? Note* There's been almost no talk of Dual Core models, I don't think Intel going to only sell Quads:rofl: Surely the Dual Core processing four threads should be faster than current Quads because of it IMC and faster Clock speed at stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by biftek.
This has been repeated repeatedly!Quote:
Originally Posted by PCworld
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1025
Quote:
It appears that the rumors about Intel’s next major microprocessor “Nehalem” being a huge juggernaut may be true according to leaked documents from Sun Microsystems (removed Sunday night). The slides appear to be inadvertently placed on Sun’s publicly accessible website and “jokerman” posted the link on Aceshardware (thanks to tip from ZDNet reader JumpingJack). The slides looks like the real thing meant for Intel’s partners and they’re probably well known in the server industry.
I was only saying that the $400 range was given for what will end up being the MID-RANGE not a Budget processor at all. It will be the equivalent to the E64/6600 or Northwood 2.6GHz when it, the 2.8 and 3GHz models shipped and the Other cheaper models of these shipped much later, hell, 6 to 8 months later. I could be wrong, I'm not an expert but just following what both of them have done in the Past. I'm curious about the Dual Core models as well:DQuote:
Originally Posted by ZDnet
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
Donnie27 does get it, you don't:rofl: Q6600 didn't start out at $200. If it did, I'd have made different comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Please, snap out of it, wake up!? I have Intel and AMD products and will have them irrespective of what you say. I replied in Fanboy manner because it is what I was called=P The rest of what you're saying makes little to no sense so I'll not even bother!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank M
For everyone else not sleep walking, Intel processors will run into the same overclocking woes that have plagued AMD and no locks will be necessary. It is the simple difference between Slower less complex but more flexible FSB, or Complex, much faster but less flexible QPI!:rolleyes:
Donnie next time press the "multi-quote" plz :p:
1/10, FAILtroll is FAIL, NO U!, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
You were not even trying to understand - which means a rational argument
is useless with you. Happy trolling, I'm getting out :p:
You're the troll!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank M
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...FSB+bad&page=7
Same thing has already been posted! Up yours' buddy!
nobody can help you, if you take a general statement personally and let yourself get offended by it. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank M
The basis for this rumor is that FUDZILLA is stating the obvious and adding a negative assumption to it that is completely unfounded.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
The fact is that Nehalem will have on-die clock generators... sure. No problem. However, FUD then proceed to speculate and cast Fear Uncertainty and Doubt about the ability to overclock. Just because the clock gen circuit is on-die DOES NOT imply it cannot be controlled from BIOS.
What amazes me is how many people read FUD news and follow it like a pack of sheep... declaring it the gospel. LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by biftek.
I wouldn't be that sure - it seems Nehalem Bloomfield will require more expensive 8-layer PCB motherboards.
http://www.nehalemnews.com/2008/05/r...-to-use-8.html
i dont think we see much higher prices then nowadays, if you look at the prices of mainstream serverbaords, they are in the 250-350€ pricerange, todays highend consumer boards are in the 200-300€ pricerange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinacolada
So if you consider the fact that serverboards have 2 cpu slots double the vrms etc. i dont think we see much movement in the price.
It seems this guy was speculating. Got anything that says this for a fact? There have been 6 layer Server boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinacolada
I'm not technical savvy enough to know whether or not this is possible, although im sure it is, but I am business savvy enough to know that Intel would definitely do this. They've been on top for quite sometime and that leds to over-confidence and just plain arrogance. Not to mention the fact that probably 30% of the overclocking market consists of Intel fan-boys who would sell crack and kill for Intel, let alone paying 30-100$ more for Intel's new "overclocking" lineup.
But I can assure you that if Intel decides to stop "putting out" for overclockers, AMD will quickly become the jealous ex-girlfriend knocking on your door with a short skirt, the first 2 buttons on her blouse open, no bra and a gleam in her eyes. And I don't know about the rest of you, but being that I really have no loyalty to either company, I'll be more than happy to invite AMD in.
It's definitely speculation (I wrote it). However, for reasons I explained, it's not an unreasonable expectation. I also mention that a lot can change between now and Nehalem's release towards the end of the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Since when did the 3800 X2 sell for the $851 or higher that the Q6600 was introduced at (price per 1000)?
I think your confusing the Q6600 with the E6600 (still was $300~). Still I dont recall the 3800 X2 ever being even $400, which is what I purchased my 4400 X2 for back when they were released. Iirc the 3800 X2 was priced around $300 at introduction ;)
:yepp: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by virtualrain
Wrong link, wrong quote and geesh, what were you reading?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmer411
:confused: Did you even read the link? For almost a year X2 3800+ prices Ranged from $359 to $439.
http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_057a.html
Quote:
The X2 3800+'s pricing is $354 in 1,000-unit quantities, so initial sales should remain under $400 USD. This review will test the 3800+ against the Pentium D 820, a 2.8GHz dual core from Intel currently selling for slightly under $250; we'll also include scores from high-end dual cores such as AMD's X2 4800+ and the Pentium 4 840 Extreme Edition, with AMD's FX-55, the fastest single-core CPU available to SimHQ at this time, likewise included
Stayed that way for a Year! Q6600 launched at $851 and price cuts were talked about before the first one was sold and started life a $550 or so. It Quickly fell to $266 to $319. X2 3800+ DIDN'T see its price fall until Conroe body slammed it! Intel was competing with itself and had ZERO Choice. There were also cheaper Xeons at that point as well;) As I said, FX-55 sold for $851:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bit tech
to be fair,all intel extreme editions sold for more then 900€. :p:
I know;) I didn't try to say or imply anything negative there. I did want at least a 6 layer board because I've had better luck with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by virtualrain
Did we forget?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel...es-74798.shtml
Quote:
However, there seems to be a more practical reason for delaying the Yorkfields. Acording to reports from sources at Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers, some Yorkfield - ready motherboards are facing severe problems with front-side bus (FSB). The problematic motherboards are the mass-market four-layer boards, built with the P35 chipset, that are crippled by stability issues and feature out-of-parameters "noise" signals.
QFT! That's why many here wouldn't touch them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Sort of sucks here, Intel looking to suck the consumer dry, war with Nvidia and all this to do what with in the end? Even the fastest platform in the world capable of rendering photo realistic graphics will be useless if noone is producing games for it. i am becoming disheartened over the whole ordeal just seems such a waste to spend 5k to build the ultimate PC and then have no games/programs to take advantage of all that horsepower.
I have money to spend but can't decide to spend on a SS phase build a super PC or just sell all my stuff and spend 2k on an imac and put the other 3k in bank...
That is what made the Inq the site they are today and now FUD is trying to cach up to.
Why dont that site just try and earn respect instead of giving it away for hits ?
I bet you 50 dollars that applies to most X38/X48 right now too. I know ASUS is having trouble with Yorkfields and Intel based motherboards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I never tested a Yorkfield but I can say that the 8400 had zero problem with the Cheap Gigabyte DS3L P35. It worked like a Charm on it. I wouldn't take your bet because I feel the same way even though I can't prove it. If I wanted a Yorkie, I'd want at least a 6 layer board no matter what chipset it's based on:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
OT!
But dewd, folks complaining about only doing 520MHz FSB LOL!:ROTF:
Oh, I forgot this little PDF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
https://mr.pricegrabber.com/october_...ket_trends.pdf
:up:
How many layers is the Striker II Extreme, thats the board ASUS is giving me due to a "Compatibility issue" with C1 Stepping Yorkies.
The Asus Striker II Formula is equipped with the Nvidia 780i SLI northbridge chipset.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
With nVidia Chipsets, layers are the least of anyone's problems. Certain RAM, X-Fi, Audigy, Controller Cards, USB Devices and etc... have had more problems than on the Intel Chipsets. But many folks still cling to nVidia for some reason or another:confused:
I'm talking about the 790i Chipset, aka Striker II Extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Same problems as its predecessor!Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
.....I smell a fanboy. a Intel chipset fanboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
sounds like the "smart" intel guys are back in control :lol:
no enthusiasts, no ocing... = no pr...
good luck with that intel! :D