Where was SB developed?
And Haswell?
Printable View
Where was SB developed?
And Haswell?
and it's faster than that borked analog power controller in itanium?:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
iirc you say youre an expert on ISA's. what advantage does x86 have? i certainly dont see it. in fact it looks like back in the day RISC was the best choice for high end machines and now it looks like the best choice for low power devices.
Core 2 : HaifaQuote:
Originally Posted by memmem
Nehalem/Westmere : Oregon
Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge : Haifa
Haswell/Rockwell: Oregon
Thanks.
Is there any kind of cooperation between Haifa and Oregon teams?
Just curiosity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
I'm not sure if the DP/MP server versions (Gainestown/Beckton (Nehalem-EP/EX) and Jaketown (SNB-EP/EX)) were developed at the same place as the rest.. One thing is the CPU Core (Gilo, Gesher), the rest (uncore, IIO, SA) might be a different story since the concept is now pretty modular..
Actually I think he won't answer questions you can just google for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumak
LGA2011 is SB-E, has 40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes on chip (enough for two GPUs and a raid card). I'm really looking foward to these chips, but they are a while away. AT least I'll have time to save up.
Then it's already leaked... Look for the Waimea Bay platform..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
http://vr-zone.com/articles/a-look-i...ay/8877-1.html
Using places as codenames is a great way to screw up google, alas I'd read this article a while ago so I didn't have much hassle finding it again. I'm sure someone posted it back in April, but I'm too lazy to look.
Also as a point of note, no one has bothered to inform the guys at bit tech, or anywhere else really about Dr Who's claims that SB overclocks just fine. I guess he only thinks of us as important enough to bother with, I'm touched.
Funny thread title, feel like we see that same threat/d pop up every few years or so :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
very nice collection of infos there :toast:
i cant believe this!! like someone said earlier - why are intel stopping something they've dominated for the past 10 years!!!???
i'd like to think this is not true but seems to be judging by all the articles i've read.
we've still got the 2011 LGA chips to see yet - these might be just like i7,i5 etc...as far as OC'ing goes.
surely they've know this since P4s came out - who would buy the most expensive cpus when they can get a £200 920 to faster than a 965!!!
also i don't think anyone has brought this up yet - the market for overclocking is tiny compared with normal retail and prebuilt computers if you know what i mean - you find out how many i7 920s were sold in the last 2 years or whatever individually through placed like newegg etc.. then find out how many i7 920s intel sold to companies like DELL or ACER etc....you'll find that there was more sold to the big computer companies than to people who want to overclock them..
If they limit overclocking they will only limit low-end models if at all. Honestly, I don't really believe that.
I bet there will be a way around even if so.
10 years? not really... are you even aware that originally all cpus came with unlocked multipliers and it was intel who started to lock multipliers to begin with? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by grishenko45
hi - no i was not aware of that - sorry. and you say intel were to 1st to start locking multipliers!! look at where they are now!!Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
if all this is true about SB - i quess the winners are the motherboard manufacturers that find a way to unlock the multis 1st
charging $1000 for the pleasure of an unlocked multi...Quote:
Originally Posted by grishenko45
I do believe the Pentium 133MHz was the first locked chip :)Quote:
Originally Posted by grishenko45
More like 4 years. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by grishenko45
You may also want to mention why they, amd and intel, introduced the lock. Remarking of the cpus just got so popular and the fake markings where so sophisticated that noone could tell which cpu it was from just the looks.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
With that action amd and intel basically killed the remarking business over night.
First locked chips where the P2s. For AMD it was the orignal athlon on the slot A.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oj101
well we will see... i think intel will watch closely how well sb sells and if it doesnt do well they will release new models with more unlocked multipliers or lower the price of cpus with unlocked multipliers...Quote:
Originally Posted by grishenko45
as if there was ever a huge market for remarked cpus... but yes, some people started to create fake highend cpus based on cheap entry level chips. while intel worked on their techniques until it was truly impossible to unlock their cpus, amd only made sure that it was possible to spot remarked cpus easily. they only truly locked their cpus in the late athlonXP days, and shortly after launched the athlon64 line which came with all lower multipliers than stock unlocked and a highly overclockable reference clock, AND offered fully unlocked cpus for 999$Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
errr no? there were still remarked p2 and even p3 cpus, and amd cpus continued to be unlockable from the p3 competitor slot a athlon to socket a athlon, to athlonXP palomino, athlonXP tbredA and AthlonXP tbredB... and the market for unlocked cpus didnt dissapear, there were 754 ES cpus being sold as 3700+ cpus on ebay for a long time, some 939 ES cpus as well, and did you ever notice that while there were no more remarked cpus being sold, at the same time ES cpus started to show up in forums, shops and on ebay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
but yes, lets keep to intels official story, by locking the cpus they killed the remarking business over night ;)
they didnt want to prevent people from overclocking cheap chips instead of buying 4x as expensive chips that were barely faster... they only did this to fight the evil remarking mafia that was threatening the entire industry and world peace! ^^
This is a win win situation for Intel: by integrating the clockgen they lower platform costs AND limit overclocking. As the leaks say, 'regular' locked CPUs will probably allow slightly higher multipliers whereas the fully unlocked "K" series CPUs will be fully unlocked. This also nets Intel more profit by selling the K series for a premium.
The enthusiast market only makes up for 3-5% of all PC sales so Intel doesn't give a rat's ass about pissing off overclockers.
we may only be 3-5% of the market - but to the enthusiast motherboard companies we must be worth more than 3-5% - as someone else said - why would you buy 1 motherboard over another if they are all the same and only let you OC by 3%??!!Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
Pentium MMX overdriveQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Intel Pentium MMX overdrive 180 - PODPMT60X180
SourceQuote:
Intel Pentium MMX overdrive 180 - PODPMT60X180
180 MHz
320-pin staggered ceramic PGA
Overdrive MMX processor for Pentium 75, 90, 100 and 150 CPUs
Pentium MMX and non-MMX overdrive processors look somewhat similar to boxed Pentium processors. Like the boxed processors, the overdrives have processor markings on the heatsink. Unlike the boxed processor, the overdrive CPUs have speed marked in the top right corner. The overdrives also include integrated voltage regulator, which allows the microprocessor to work in socket 5 motherboards. And finally, the overdrive processor have their clock multiplier locked. For PODPMT60X180 the clock multiplier is locked at 3x, so depending on bus speed (50 or 60 MHz) the processor will run on 150 or 180 MHz.
And I can say with 100% certainty that the P133 WAS locked (I've overclocked a few dozen Pentiums).
Don't buy what you don't like.
Vote with your wallet. If SB does not overclock then don't buy it.
Agree buy bulldozers
Intel is selling too much sh*i*t E5300. This is very slow, and not very efficient for a cpu, and this is what intel the most ... :down:
Doesn't matter because there are still unlocked K series chips. If anything, mobo manufacturers will just increase the price of enthusiast boards to make up for the lower volume of sales. $400-500 enthusiast boards could become the norm even though LGA2011 only requires a southbridge chip on the mobo.Quote:
Originally Posted by grishenko45
Expect even more fancy marketing terms :rolleyes:
release date:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oj101
P2 -> Mai 1997
Pentium MMX overdrive 180 (since its the only locked one) release date -> August 1997
My statement holds -> P2 was the frist locked intel cpu. ;)
Leme guess most of them where the infamous SY022 with the "broken" multiplier pin?
Its not like the boards get cheaper to produce... more traces for quadchannel interface, more layer (8), and more traces for the power circuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
I think the server socket will be quad channel only, but the ship will remain the same.
Not really since quite a few things will change, other MC, more cores, igp gets removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
If you refer to the basic SB core, yes they stay the same. But the whole chip is quite different form the S1155 version.
The extra traces needed for quad channel is offset by the fewer traces needed because there won't be a QPI to PCIe (north)bridge required anymore. Anyways, more traces does NOT mean a more expensive board to produce, current high end X58 boards are already 8 layered anyways, it's just a matter of putting more traces in the design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
There are always people predicting the end of the world every time a new generation of CPU is coming. This is an insult to the creativity of the overclockers world wide, and the creativity of the processor designers, and it was proven 100% wrong in the past ... The OC masters always find a way to turn around the difficult challenges ... Are you one of them (Would make sense if you read this forum), or you are just one crying baby? You choose your camp ... I am in the camps of having fun with a little more difficult part than usual, this is when you see who is the Daddy :)
(I started overclocking on my ZX81, when I had to unsouder the Quartz to change the frequency ... Just giving you a hint ... )
Take it easy, let's see who is the best of the best ... Beat me if you can :)
Francois Piednoel.
I am a crying baby, will you hand me the keys to make it spin faster? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Oh wow, that is a heavy duty hint. This is going to make overclocking go old skool. Was that door left open deliberately or was it just a oversight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
The whole point of this is that intel is simply trying to remove hidden value that was once accessible through easy overclocking.
What you are suggesting (in the literal sense) is not even possible because the clock generator is on the CPU. You know this, so I do not understand what in God's name you're getting at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
so it WILL be more difficult and intel wont fix the bclock spectrum before the launch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
i actually agree with you though... more challanges = more fun :D
and even with one arm tied behind its back sb should do "ok" against anything amd will throw at intel in the near future :P
unfortunately... no competition = : /
I imagine he's suggesting that the CPU will accept a clock generated from a external source, not that you literally dismantle the CPU to adjust the clock generator. I can't be sure that's exactly what he meant, but as a Intel employee he wouldn't hint at something physically impossible especially not on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelCain
i wouldnt be too sure about that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
i dont think boards today cost more than they did back then... since volume plays a major role in this i have a hunch they were more expensive back then...
hes not hinting at anything for sb, hes just saying thats how it used to be, so people shouldnt be too spoiled from all the advances that made overclocking so easy and convenient, and rather embrace a challenge than whine about it... thats how i read it at least :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
the only problem is that since its all integrated into the cpu, running it out of spec becomes less and less of a challenge and more of an impossibility in some regards :/
Looks like a hint to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
gonna be some good info on this at IDF...you gonna be there francois?
this will be the presentation to watch people.a 115 min speech on this very subject! it will be broadcast on 9/14/2010 at 1:05 pmQuote:
ICPS002 Overclocking Intel® Desktop and Mobile Platforms
man... if it would be THAT easy, trust me, mainboard makers would have done it already :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
he means it as a hint of how hardcore overclocking was back then and all the lengths you had to go to overclock... AT ALL...
well, francois, feel free to correct me ^^
i sure didnt mind the days of shorting pins with copper wire, or pencil voltmodding, but why go backwords at all, when amd currently offers 2x the number of things to tweak.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Hey guys, I've been a big browser in these forums for a long time(and thanks for the overclocking help) and now I registered when I found in the IDF catalog that there will be a session on overclocking and will have a Preview of Sandy Bridge overclocking
Session Detail
Session Title: Overclocking Intel® Desktop and Mobile Platforms
Length: 115 minutes
Level: Intermediate
Abstract: Intended Audience: Desktop & Notebook OEMs/ODMs/Channel integrators including engineers, marketing, BIOS engineers, technical press, others.
This session provides a description of overclocking platforms based on the Intel® X58 Express Chipset, Intel® P55 Express Chipset and Intel® PM55 (mobile) Chipset based platforms.
Topics covered in this session:
• Overclocking architecture of the Intel® X58 Express Chipset based platforms (including all LGA1366-based Intel® Core™ i7 desktop processors)
• Overclocking architecture of the Intel® P55 Express Chipset based platforms (including all LGA1156-based Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 desktop processors)
• Overclocking architecture of the Intel® PM55 (mobile) Chipset based platforms with Intel Core i7 mobile Extreme Edition processors
• Interaction between overclocking and Intel® Turbo Boost Technology
• Design considerations for maximizing platform overclockability
• Tuning and Overclocking tools
• An example of overclocking using software tools as well as manual changes in BIOS
• A sneak peek of future Intel® Microarchitecture Codename Sandy Bridge based overclocking architecture
Speaker: Dan Ragland Mobile Platform Engineer
Intel Corporation
Michael Moen Senior Hardware Engineer
Intel Corporation
Exactly, why did people overclock in the first place? Even I did pencil mods back in the day, but because we wanted more ... for free. Intel killing the easy overclock is not something I see as being taken away from me, but rather it restoring something to the way it was supposed to be. If you want more performance you pay for more, you can't upgrade your car for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
yea baw264 mentioned a few places back... :)
Wrong. It varies but many vehicles can be upgraded in performance for free. Depending on what type you could drill the jets, flash the eprom, take out extra weight, install a bleed in the wastegate pressure line, take off the mufflers, port and polish the manifolds/heads, etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
I swear, computer people shouldn't delve into car analogies unless they have a clue.
You are looking for evil where there is no evil ...Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Just take it easy, wait and see.
And trust me, If somebody was trying to kill over clocking at Intel, he will be drying in my attic by now ... I am famous at intel to be merci-less if you touch "overclocking". We have a massive group of people dedicated to overclocking lead by Mike Moen, we love overclocking, this is our hobby, our passion.
New architectures with complexity over billions transistors are coming with new challenges, you have the CPU, the Caches, the PCIexpress, the GPU, the mem controler and all of the gadgets on the same dice, to explain it simply, the complexity of this processor is many times the complexity of the space shuttle, those CPUs are part of the greatest human kind archivements , using parts that even nature did not use, in term of size ... more than 700 transistors in the diagonal of a Blood white cell ... So, please take it easy ... we are doing all we can to make the CPUs as fun as we can for you ...
OK? Trust me, there are no plan to kill overclocking, except may be in your imagination.
Francois Piednoel
Fair enough..:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Riiiiiiiiiiight, because the number of people who can hit numbers into a BIOS to OC is the same as those who are willing to mechanically delve into their car. The barrier to old style OCing like replacing clock chips by soldering is the same as popping open your hood: screw up and you've got an expensive paperweight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
We've been spoiled by FSB / bclock OC. It's as if you could pop open a hidden instrument panel to unlock extra HP.
@ Dr.Who: thanks for the kind words. I personally don't have a problem if OC is restricted, but it's nice to see you guys still into the 'hidden value'.
I would say the mechanical delvers far exceed the number of PC owners who would even know what a BIOS is, let alone have opened it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
@dr. who
mind blowing man! you do put things into perspective very nicely. you guys do great work, i am a big fan :)
keep up the good work!
Well that's nice to hear, at least we have some form of 'mole/insider' at Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Now to play the waiting game....I'll pass on Sandy Bridge but look forward to the whatever revision it brings. A refined 32nm process should make for some cheap hexacores.......eventually ;P
Francois,
Make sure you eat right, exercise and do whatever to keep in shape and be healthy. We need you to work at Intel well passed your retirement age :D
I like the way you think. Intel should never restrict overclocking. After all there is a very small niche of people that even know about it. In my 15 years of IT carrier i have met many professionals and not many even knew about it and even less tried to overclock. I can count those that tried on one hand:rofl:
Keep the good stuff rolling.
Just a side note.Yep, in many cases you can, just have to have the knowledge ,some software and a interface.Quote:
you can't upgrade your car for free.
Many cars with different specced HP on engines, have exactly the same engines, there are some minor differencies but you can extract more power without physically changing anything.
What dr.who says sounds encouraging, however, i hope its not just PR talk (as in no details).
If sandybridge will be overclockable and bulldozer fails, they gonna have a new customer.
I'm really excited to see exactly how far you can overclock the "K" CPUs, the fastest SKU goes to 3.8GHz on turbo and concidering typical 24/7 on todays CPUs lies there at 4~4.2GHz and Intel lab stability != our LinX 3hr+ or whatever stability (not to mention the TDP requirements). Those high factory frequencies really is promissing, if SB overclockability ratio wouldn't become worse than what it's on bloomfield, lynnfield etc. we would be at like 4.7~5GHz on air lol. Ofc things don't always work like that and could be that clock frequency scaling is a lot worse on this architecture (more leakage) due to added complexity but WHAT IF, would be sweet to get like 20% frequency boost on top of whatever IPC increase SB has.
My point is that there is no equivalent to the almost guaranteed, risk free, free overclocking done in the days of FSB / bclock, for both AMD and intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
But of course, we can argue about my car analogy as much as everyone wants.
I believe what he meant when he was talking about the quartz is that its not going to be a piece of cake to overclock anymore, as in the mainstream user or one with less knowledge or time can't really do much, but that us with our skills or whatever you want to call it, and our motivation mostly will prevail. So that way they get rid of the fact that anyone can follow a template and overclock thier 930 for example to 4ghz. I would think apart from the settings there will be some sort of physical modification or trick or something that involves some dedication. Like for example intel makes the mobo manufacturers make sure you cant unlock over 175blck, but doesn't tell them they can let you easily mod a large resistor or 2 and fix it. 50-70% of the new overclockers wouldn't dare take a soldering iron to their board b/c theyd be too scared and would be limited. the other 30% of us would b/c we have done it before. Or the engineers might do something like put in an extra resistor on the underside of the processor that limits overclocking, but we can remove or replace it to overclock. That would basically make it so that that 50-70% would buy a better processor, limiting the extreme overclockers numbers and regain the market share they lost when overclocking became very popular 3-4 years ago and exponentially rose. Or i might just be 100% wrong.
Very true @ similar rumors about Nehalem. Keeping fingers crossed.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebanik
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeexactly, hence intel removing the 'hidden value'. Not saying OC is dead, but the extra free value is.Quote:
Originally Posted by sin0822
I agree. All this "the more difficult the more rewarding" sounds just like bs to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Its not a rumour about intel blocking bus OCing.Anand had the chips, most probably from intel ,and he verified thats true.Quote:
Very true @ similar rumors about Nehalem. Keeping fingers crossed.
Dr. who seems to be verifying it too, albeit in more rainbowish colors, as in "its good to have artificial lock, it lets you be creative in circumventing it".
Lets hope it will be possible without some extreme measures.
wow ... I did not confirm, neither deny ... this is intel PR job :) ... What I am saying is that when computers become more complex, the overclocking become a little harder, the design much harder ... That's all I said.
Don't make me say something I did not
Take it easy ... don't sell the skin of the bear, before you killed it ... (Funny translation from french :) )
Francois
For the fun of it ... this is what I get with Wimax in a cafe store:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/947291502.png
lol no no ... no cable, pure 100% wireless ... no string attached.
Hi Guys,
I've been looking at the news about SB on Techspot and the 'leak' on Netbook Italia. Now I havent read all 12 pages of this thread so I dont know if it has been brought up (probably has a thousand time knowing my luck) , but doesnt the new I3's just look like I5's with disabled cores/cache and with HT enabled?
i3 2100 @ dual core 3.1ghz 3mb cache (is half of) i5 2400 @ quad 3.1ghz 6mb cache no HT
i3 2120 @ dual core 3.3ghz 3mb cache (is half of) i5 2500 @ quad 3.3ghz 6mb cache no HT
So is Intel just disabling cores and enabling HT?? Maybe the i5's will unlock like a lot of current AMD Phenoms!?
Of course I am probably totally wrong and there will be other differences that I dont know about lol:P
James
ARRGGGHHHH, I've been having uberslow net since I moved back to this student appartment, it's supposed to be 5/5Mbit but I'm getting like 0.35 ~ 0.7Mbit speeds most of the time. I'm going nuts, can't even stream youtube videos in lowest quality without buffering. :nuts: Complained but they don't seem to be find where the problem is. It's usually a bit faster during night though so would have to stay up at night and sleep during day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Err, bulldozer is supposed to be considerably faster than K10.5, with 8 cores :p: Unless it only overclocks to 3 Ghz or something (possible after seeing K8) I don't see it completely failing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'RaV[666
this thread was dead for like a month, why do people feel the need lately to resurrect old threads?
I dunno. I'm looking forward to seeing what sandy bridge does...
It's usually a result of the search function.
I'm acutally looking forward to more complexity, just not 1000 dollar processors with 400 dollar motherboards, like it is now, unless its a 500 dollar processor can be pair with a 200 dollar motherboard, and that be the highend, which is what sandybrigde seems like in general b/c you guys are taking everything off the board and putting it on the chip, soon enough the cpu will be the actual cpu unit and im cool with that as long as it doesn't cost me an arm and a leg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
well... if its that, yes, thats something i actually like... making it trickier to overclock... but trickier and impossible are two things... and with everything being integrated on die, there are more things you just cant, ever, possibly, modify externally...Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
if bclock overclocking on sb would be really tricky, great... but if the best you can get is a 5% overclock thats not tricky, thats broken... and if the only alternative we end up with to overclock is multipliers... well that makes overclocking even easier and more boring, and makes it less overclocking to begin with and more "tuning" and "tweaking" which is cool as well, but not really the same...
so from a positive side: overclocking will be more challenging, unlocked cpus for low prices, yay! :D
from a negative side: only 5% bclock overclocking, maybe 10% with tweaking... the only way to really "overclock" is paying extra for a K cpu and adjusting the multiplier in bios... lame! :/
i think 1155 sb will usher in a renaissance of tweaking, cause most people will be stuck at the same multiplier and the same bclock... so then the only way to make a difference is to tweak in software, memory timings etc...
francois, you make it sound as if overclocking is oh so important for intel, and that there is no way they could cut down on overclocking let alone try to limit it... yet, correct me if im wrong, thats exactly what this bclock limit is about... i dont think it was done on purpose, like i said many times... it was done cause most of intel doesnt care about overclocking and they didnt want to have extra transistors in their budget and extra logic to debug... im just guessing here... but thats what it looks like to me...
so if intel would REALLY care so much about overclocking and the people that push it would REALLY be powerful enough to make sure overclocking stays in place and wont be limited or blocked, then how come they couldnt get a bclock to dmi clock divider into 1155? its not that many transistors and not that much debugging...
but im sure its enough to increase the cost of sb by enough to make the penny counters at intel want to save money instead... and the only way the good guys at intel could push for the divider is by going for a low volume highend platform... again, thats great on one side, but disappointing on the other, as the penny counters at intel seem to be too strong and the majority of intel seems to not understand the importance of overclocking...
anyways, thanks for all you and the other guys have done to "fight the machine" :D
The goal of overclocking is Intel's same goal: increasing performance while maintaining stability. At some point, Intel's efforts were bound to encroach on that of overclockers. Bringing more things on die increases the general performance; having the clock generators on die means that the signal degradation is significantly less, allowing for more internal components to stay in sync with less room for error. We continue to expect major performance increase with each new architecture, but want Intel to maintain the elements that allow us to change the internal workings on a whim. It's fun, and it has a value. Being limited to "tweeking" means that we can continue to have the performance enhancements we enjoy. A lot of it simply comes down to the architectural path. The steps made nehalem, which has some pretty amazing overclocks, led to those in sandy bridge. The writing was on the wall as it were. We all enjoy overclocking, but I doubt we want to be the "old goats" that put up a fight when things change. I say let things roll and enjoy the ride. :up:Quote:
...makes it less overclocking to begin with and more "tuning" and "tweaking" which is cool as well, but not really the same...
Why not try that again.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
.....on LTE at a café in Stockholm :)
LTE? well, the specs are not even finished :rofl: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kej
SandyB + Wimax = Wroooooooooooooooooom ;-)
no, we want them to allow us to change it... at all... it doesnt have to be easy, id actually prefer it to be tricky like i said, and i think every real overclocker thinks the same :DQuote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
your contradicting yourself... we are limited to X but will continue the same perf enhancements... if that was the case then X wouldnt be a limit now would it? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
huh? it started overclocking worse than the previous gen and then caught up with it :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
sure!... its not like we have an option anyways heh :DQuote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
its great unless theres a wall and the wimax signal goes BOOOOOOM and crashes into the wall ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
i tried wimax in taipei and its a joke... great signal, enter any building and its very weak or even dissapears...
theres a reason intel spent billions to get on board of lte ;)
well, in Tokyo, there is no problem, neither in USA ... usually when you lose signal with Wimax, you will lose it with LTE too, because it is usually the steel bars in the concrete that are doing a F-cage and block the signal ...Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
A lot of people speak about LTE ... Where is it ? The issue of Wimax deployment is even worst for LTE ... There is just no LTE network. there are only few little points world wide ... and Wimax is open on the patent side, not hostage of Quadcomm patents ... just saying ... ;-) :shrug: (This is my personal opinion)
Francois
And what can u say us about SB to LGA 2011?:) Its for 3Q or 4Q 2011?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Does it matter.....? It Works! :D
If the steel bars will block the signal or not are heavily dependent on theQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
wavelength and length between the bars. Higher frequencies will go through.
The type of concrete and also how much water the concrete has, have impact
on signal.
IIRC Rule of thumb: Half the wavelength, or more, in space between the steel
bars should let the signal trough.
There is no WIMAX network! You can say things from your view, and me from
mine, but that view does not necessarily exist all over the world. :)
Here in Sweden we have LTE but no WIMAX. Intel bought the WIMAX
frequencies, but at least I haven't heard a word on any development.
Perhaps they run it for them selfs in Kista :p:
The LTE network is rolling in 4 cities in Sweden now with 200 more to follow
during 2011. FWIW, YMMW etc etc.
Our school can't have school wide student WiFi installed due to the walls and floor construction blocking the signal. Have a Wireless N router in one room, then 5 ft away in the next room and the signal is poor at best. :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
We are spending $20,000 to install access points and routers throughout the school... :down:
thats not what ive heard... but ok...Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
thats not what ive heard either... service providers and chip manufacturers are mostly in favor of LTE here and say its easier to deploy and upgrade to from 3g and 3.5g than wimax... and according to what they said wimax has more problems with signal strength because of the frequencies it uses...Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
then again, as fqar as i know there are 3 frequency ranges for wimax which are pretty far apart...
oh come on, as if wimax was widely available... :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
nothing in LA
nothing in SF
nothing in SJ
nothing in miami
nothing in orlando
nothing in tampa
nothing in NY
from what ive heard its much easier to switch from 3g and 3.5g to LTE than wimax... no idea why or if thats true... but i dont see why theyd make this up...Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
true, yet chip companies here in taiwan still seem to prefer LTE over wimax... :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
On the note of wireless signals, this has been talked about a lot here recently:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
http://www.muchmormagazine.com/2010/...ents-think-so/
What the article (and most others) dont mention is the "turn-on" date of the wireless networking, which was some time late in 2009. The wireless systems were installed for 4 years but were not turned on. Oh, and the transmitters/repeaters are about 20x more powerful than an average wireless router as well..
They should just use powerline networking technology given that you need to plug your laptop in to use it in a school setting anyways really.. sure it will last for a class or maybe three, but its not going to last all day..
OT: BB2
if the walls inside the school are blocking the signal, why dont you guys set up wifi outside, then all youd have to do is either rework the facade walls or add a repeater next to a central window in every room? but in my experience wifi goes through windows pretty well... so no matter how bad the walls are, the windows should be enough, especially since windows in schools tend to be rather large?
i did something like that when i still lived in germany, we wanted wifi in the backyard of our apartment building and noticed that by setting it up outside of the building, the wifi signal strength improved so much that a few neighbours even canceled their isp contracts and shared a single connection instead :D
If this does happen, then I'll just get an I7 970 after its price comes down. Dont really need anything better than that.
(Just wanting a 32 nm to clock higher than my I7 920).
when you say "computers become more complex" it just seems that some secrets are hidden behind those words. are the limited OC capabilities are from intel's incompetence to provide a decent clock architecture? this is my best explanation if complexity or some other technical reason is the problem. surely your engineers should be able to understand another layer of complexity? i mean a 22nm process has over 1,000 steps and you are able to design chips with billions of transistors. why does this limit exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
/rant
The oc'ability limit is no doubt due to increasing complexity and the drive for higher integration. Moving the GPU, PCIe, and most of the northbridge components into the CPU socket it becomes more practical to derive all those buses and components from a common clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
The real OCability limiter here is not the clock generator or the CPU for that matter but the tight tolerance (or intolerance if you wish) of the PCIe bus, since that now derives its clock from the same that drives the CPU and others, it would not take Einstein to predict that OC will be limited.
yeah, it might be at 100mhz bclck to sync with pci-e bus.
Wouldn't there be a pcie multiplier? just drop the pcie multi as bclk increases. Sounds easy enough.. Maybe thats the extra level of complexity being talked about heh... Getting ram, uncore, qpi, cpu and pcie to all play nice
That is where it is locked I would suspect, I have never seen a PCIe ratio/multiplier option in a BIOS, however i would suppose it possible or existed on boards I never owned. Typically, the PCIe on the chipset has it's own clock, separate from the system clock. Clarksdale/Allendale have the PCIe on the CPU but also has it's own clock -- supplied by the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Booj
yes, that is the level of complexity, the tight integration of all the different IOs. Sux for the enthusiast, but great for the volume OEMs and system builders -- two less specifications to design two (two different clock generators and the associated traces).
pci-e2 has a multi that is auto selected, so if u have no pci-e1 devices and run someware from 100-199 u would be below the range, that may be a bypass but i have no idea on the stability or how it would effect the chipset
:confused: :stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
then how can you defend intel for breaking bclock adjustments?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
chum made a perfect point, francois is bragging about how great their designs are, but if they are really so great then how come they couldnt solve this problem by adding a simple divider or multiplier? nobody cares where the clock signal comes from, thats not the point... the point is what you do with it...
well good thing for us here at xtremeOEMsandsystembuilders.org then! hooray! wait... :hm:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I don't defend it, i think it sux as much as the next guy but I am also not so closed minded I pretend not to understand why companies do the things they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Intel does not make their money with xtremesystems.org, they do not even make the most volume of their revenue with DIY boxed processors but they do make money with the guys that would be part of xtremeOEMsandsystembuilders.org that is who they are trying to sell the bulk of their product to in the first place ... they are offering unlocked skus which is fine by me. I won't participate in skt 1155 any way, I will only go for skt 2011.... those won't be BLCLK locked from what is understood on the net.
but u cannot sell chips without people like those of XS liking them, just look at the p4 it lost market share since diy and overclockers did not want it so then tuned in consumer grade OEM buying consumers started to want amd, then the core2 and am2 came out destroying amd in the DIY and intel went back up but amd still kept some people. if this happened again with amd already in the 20% or so and most companies having amd builds then intel would loose a much larger chunk. so they would need an unlocked bclock platform or cheap unlocked cpus or they will suffer in the long term.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Well let the market speak for itself. Personally I think it's more rewarding tweaking a locked multiplier cpu than an unlocked one (although a lot more patience is needed :D). Let them have fun with their K-series CPUs. Had it not been for AMD's Black Edition processors, Intel may have never even released the K-series.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
that was if the buss is locked, they need unlocked multi parts cheapQuote:
Originally Posted by richierich
Slide sorry had to edit...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1&d=128453662
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1264293947
Another slide i don't know what the numbers mean
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/542/tremp4.jpg
why cant a PLL fix that? nehalem is a highly modular design which is why every core, mem controller, and the uncore have their own PLL. everything is decoupled to provide flexibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
it doesnt take an einstein to fix this problem. aside from that einstein would more likely avoid problems in the first place rather than fix problems.
interesting Intels message
A PLL for the PCIe bus is certainly the right way to do it, I just have never run across a board the provides a multiplier (or adjustable PLL) for the PCIe bus, they usually have their own clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
As you say, it is not rocket science. Frankly, I think Intel is making a huge mistake ... I am no different in my opinion than anybody else. While I can undestand the reasons behind the design decision, I do not agree with them.
The budget overclocking enthusaist is a very small part of the market, even in the most generous assumptions, maybe 5-6% of all CPUs sold, what I don't think Intel really comprehends is that that 5-6% is the most demanding, most vocal. What they tell their friends, family, and neigbors influences those decisions as well. This move, undoubtedly, will cost them the any mindshare they have in the enthusast community and it will have farther reaching repercussions than just losing a few boxed processor sales.
No amount of 'K' CPUs is going to alter that perception.
EDIT: then there is the perception, which most certainly could be true, that Intel is trying to monetize overclocking. With the integration of the GPU in Clarksdale/Allendale and the release of 1366 sockets, Intel is clearly putting a hard, and definitive boundary between the low end/mainstream CPUs and the high end/performance CPUs derived without an IGP integrated. If I were deciding this, I would put out budget, low costs socket 2011 chips and chipsets and eliminate any enthusiast interest in socket 1155. That's just me though.
Did they lose P4 marketshare because the DIY market did not want them or did they lose market share because their competitor simply had a better product?Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
It is short-sighted to make that correlation of cause and effect, there is no evidence that your thesis is actually true.
Are these really Intel slides? Were they translated from different language, because the grammar is worse than mine ... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
I have a hard time believing this.. cellphone directly to the head, yes.. that makes senseQuote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
But ambient 2.4ghz at what... 50 milli watts? Cathode tv's emitted much more radiation, and directly at you, than a wifi router could, or even your wiring in your house, unless its fully insulated (usually not) is going to create more background radiation that a wifi router.. Do they have a proposed mechanism, or taken any EEG, fmri's?