Printable View
Yes, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by stealthbomber
The original point of overclocking was to push cheaper parts until they could compete with the top-end ones. Are we all forgetting this? I have more respect for someone who can get insane speeds from a low-end CPU than someone who jumps on the latest thing, has more money than sense and feels the need to impress people on the Internet.
i7 doesn't even interest me, nor does DDR3, and it'll be quite a while until I even care at all.
well, here is a good point:
http://www.edmunds.com/media/ownersh...glabel.500.jpg
Will you buy the audio R8 that goes with it?
should be more and more ddr3 coming into the market, and it will be around for a few years i read.
I have no interest in core i7 at the moment. I'll more than likely jump at the end of '09 or Q1 '10 if the performance and maturity is there for the 2nd gen CPU and motherboards but for now I am pretty happy with my QX9650.
Hopefully this will spur more DDR3 options though. I'd like to move to DDR3 and the x48 Rampage extreme in January if the DDR3 prices are decent and the RAM will carry over to the x58 platform.
Considering most people haven't bought DDR3 since it's been so damn expensive I don't think it's going to deter many people since they haven't laid down the green for DDR3 in some sort of pre-emptive buy before it the i7 comes out.
You made your point Dee, and everybody has the right to express their opinion, just like I did.
You're right. The original point of overclocking was in fact to achieve higher performance than expected with low budget components, and be able to compete with expensive high-end parts without spending the extra cash.
I for example admire people that achieve 100% OC's on Intel E2140 or E2160 processors, on air.
Anyway why shouldn't people than can afford expensive hardware try to push it even further?
Overclocking is a much wider concept now.
I suppose there are mainly two types of overclockers.
Type "A" want to reach the physical limits, break world records, show off (in a good sense) with screenshots and mostly suicide shots, spend lots of time just to get 10 or 20MHz more, and are real artists.
Benching is an art that I respect.
I really admire some XS members that have proven to be absolute geniuses.
Type "B" seek 24/7 stability, and spend their time trying to find the best OC combination that allows for some hardware longevity, but still pushing their hardware's capabilities to a higher level.
This is my type.
Since one of my main computer tasks is Folding@Home, I'm really interested in i7 and DDR3 bandwidth possibilities.
I'm pretty sure that if the client is optimized, I'll be able to process much more WU's in less time.
The company that supplies electricity to my home appreciates it, but it's a cause I really want to believe in.
Sorry for the offtopic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee
Now here's a guy that thinks the way I do.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by miguelca
I want a machine that I can run 24/7 at 100% load with decent temps and just below that "ragged edge" where parts fail, OS's deterioiate,etc..
Worlds records aren't important to me although I appreciate the work that the guys go thru to achieve them.
Yes.
All components are expensive when new. The Conroe's weren't any cheaper on release date so what makes you think the Nehalem setups will be. You probably won't be seeing low end Nehalem/bloomfield based setups at least for another 6-12months, and yeah the current Penryn line is pretty decent. All depends on your needs. For some having better processor memory bandwidth makes a world of difference. And who cares about a theoretical 1.65v IMC limit, it just means more companies will be interested in marketing lower voltage memory dimms which in my humble opinion is a fantastic thing. Why use 2.0v if you can do the same thing with 1.5v? It's just simply inefficient, and at present not many ddr3 ic manufacturers have had the need to follow JEDEC 1.5v standard because they could get away with not. If this enforces the JEDEC standard more so I'm all for it. I even look more forward to the new JEDEC 1.2v low voltage DDR3 standard that was announced recently, hopefully IC manufacturers make good use of it in the near future.
Edit: Sure it sucks to be an early DDR3 adopter hearing this, but you don't go and adopt new technology early without knowing that theres a big chance it'll be changed and you'll get screwed. Thats the joys of early technological adoption in all its splendour.
I'm with the people who say "wait." The first gen always has problems. Plus, it's not that much of an improvement over current C2s.
I have a 939 rig (I know, how un-XS of me) but I'm not exactly cash-rich to put it mildly and I think good deals will abound when the second gen i7 comes out.
To be fair there has been numerous deaths and decapitations of small children because of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I for one, will be giving i7 a miss for now.
Be aware that this may be the reason why it was hinted that not just the EE's will overclock. All 3 of the first gen chips should OC via multipliers (possibly to varying degrees of height) because you can't force the memory voltage up too high. And remember that DDR3 will gradually clock high at lower voltage as they improve the manuf process.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...7&postcount=86
Maybe theres hope
Maybe, lets hope all will be OK :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sunn
Remember though, he is also trying to sell the hardware too, pre-orders are up on the very same website. Lets hope they warranty any hardware they get back, if the worst case senario comes to fruition.....
I imagine it is all much ado about nothing though :cool:
Lots of opinions here. In any case this is the first time I've seen such an in your face warning like this which tells me that something is up, and maybe these cpu's are going to start out as pretty sensitive little buggers. In the past, Ive been nothing but an early adopter, generally voiding warranties on high end stuff right from day one, but this gives me pause nonetheless. I suppose if the performance was great enough then maybe this mitigates the possible lower vdimm requirement to some extent, but now for me it has become a uncharacteristic "wait and see" as opposed to otherwise "must get".
High vdimm was a problem with the early Athlon64 chips (new IMC) failing, then a few revisions later...
Intel better get ready for RMA city if this is true lol because none of us are going to heed this warning.
ouch! Pricey!
http://azerty.nl/producten/product_d...ocket-136.html
If memory voltage kills the CPU I'd blame ASUS not Intel as they designed the board incorrectly.
just like AMD
bump the vcore as you bump the RAM volts and you'll be fine
i bet this will be the same
*sits, watches and see :)
I did explain here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...190762&page=61Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
Two quick things:
First, my memory company has been sitting on (not releasing) a 1GB DDR3-1800 CL9 1.5V product for a few months now..
We haven't seen there being enough demand for this product in the dual-channel enthusiast market,
so we're probably just gonna wait to launch this product and make it a tri-channel kit, synchronized with the Nehalem release date.
Secondly, the limitation on the memory voltage doesn't create much of a limit on the CPU overclock that you can achieve.
The memory has its own base clock multiplier, which you can lower if you don't want to overclock the memory while overclocking the CPU.
Third, even at very low (for DDR3) memory speeds, the triple channel and IMC get more memory bandwidth than you could dream of:
No i7 for me. I'll be standing there getting the dirt cheap trickle down quads from the bleeding edge upgraders.:up: