Yes there will still be ratio's and multipliers to control everything with an on die/package PLL doing the clock generation. Memory will most likely be set to the highest platform supported SPD profile coded on the ram, and probably won't be user selectable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone
I can tell you right now that if intel follows through with this, you can expect a surge of people buying AMD cpu's at nehalems release.
My point wasn't the cost itself. Blauhung mentioned that Intel made a platform dedicated for overclockers while the rest cant be OCed/ is difficult to OC(we'll see which of the 2). I just pointed out that a large percentage of ppl even here on XS do not have or are unwilling to pay the kind of money the Bloomfield platform is going to cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
So we'd return to the days of re-writing spd's to improve memory speed.
Remember folks, it's not like AMD might not do much of the same things we see here. They need more $$ too and we all remember the days of the FX chips.
Why does everyone expect the 'Bloomfield platform' to have an insane price? Why does everyone think 'Bloomfield' and LGA1366 means just Skulltrail and Intel Extreme processors?
Socket LGA1366 is for both servers/workstations and desktops.
What does this mean? Just look at what this does for LGA775 today. You have Core 2s.. and you have identical, yet renamed Xeon processors.
Will there be Xeons for LGA1366? Yes. Will everything be locked down? No.
People aren't stupid, they'll buy Xeons if Intel doesn't offer anything else but the 'Extreme' processors. It then stands to reason that Intel will offer regular, multiplier-locked processors for the LGA1366 socket. Even if they don't, nothing is stopping enthusiasts from buying Xeons, and nothing is stopping manufacturers like DFI, Foxconn and even ASUS from making enthusiast LGA1366 boards for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Thanks.
So if I gather correctly, the information is "true" in the sense that OC'ing will not be possible, not because Intel is playing malicious, but as a no choice side effect of the new architecture? (But would still be impossible?). AKA clockspeed is set in stone. Or did I get it wrong?
Anyway I just hope the improvements from the new architecture will compensate for all that in any case.. Looks promising either way :cool:.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Ok, I can accept that but that leaves me with a single question:
How is the platform dedicated for overclockers any different from the mainstream one?
If it only means worse support, something like XE vs mainstream CPU, and X38 vs P35 chipsets, then I totally understand.
But this sounds more like X1 CPU and X2 chipset can't OC, but Y1 CPU and Y2 chipset can. It sounds more like a choice, or leaving out features in the mainstream platform that prevents OC, than anything else.
I could miss something and probably certainly have, but I don't understand this.
Blauhungs posts certainly didn't convince me, that this isn't anything other than a choice, or willing lack of support.
The side effect that the community uses to raise the normal levers etc... Well, those are obviously compensated for in the enthusiast platform. Why couldn't Intel make the mainstream CPU and chipset have the same features as with the enthusiast one (to a certain degree, it doesn't have to be all or nothing)?
Yeah right,lock OC in they're mainstream CPU's and we'll see AMD rise again;)
After all why are C2D/C2Q and C2X so popular?Because of they're easy ability to achieve big clock's with simple coolers and now they do this?I don't think so,they aren't dumbas(r)ses
But they have a different platform for enthusiasts on Nehalem, the last thing i want is for this to be true but i wouldn't be too surprised if it happenedQuote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
It's average-Joe's version of Nehalem iircQuote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
Bloomfield is the desktop quad for LGA1366. The LGA1160 Lynnfield and Havendale are 'average joe's Nehalem'.
My thinking as well, if this goes down as I (mis)understand it, as of now based upon a FUD site, and a member's information that may be very correct (I call FUD upon the first source, but not the latter).Quote:
Originally Posted by DMH
I would welcome anything that makes AMD CPU an excellent alternative, but I still think this is too much in the dark, and those that really know what this is all about, can't say anything really significant (Blauhung is still in that catogory until I am convinced otherwise).
Too little information, or I am too dumb to understand what is given. I'll wait and see, and both will probably be correct :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
In moving the entire northbridge on die, Intel has a way to reduce cost and power usage on mainstream platforms, something which 98% of the users of those systems will greatly appreciate. Because of this, there are no longer levers for this community to raise clock speeds.
because of this fact, and the want to not alienate this community. Intel developed the Bloomfield based platforms specifically for this community. Everyone else keeps seeing this as the other way around. As if they could have extended the Bloomfield platform down to the mainstream end, where the features wouldn't be useful to anyone other then those who are looking for overclocking potential on the cheap, and to sell this platform to that market they would have to operate at somewhat of a loss in profitability. This community is the only reason there even is a Bloomfield platform. Otherwise Tylersburg would be completely limited to MP and DP platforms only and there would be absolutely no OC'ing at all. It is due to the fact that Intel does want to keep this community support that they tweaked their server chipset to support the wants of the people here.
Just keep it in mind, there was a choice made. That choice was not to screw people out of their hobby. The choice was to continue actively supporting this community with the best possible systems for getting the best performance from your system. They created a platform based on high performance server components that has the ability to overclock, 3 channel memory controllers, and support 2x16 PCIe 2.0
Really, that would have involved having 2 separate platforms that operate at about the same stock performance but target 2 portions of a given market with one of those portions only taking up 2% of the market, and the platform you market to the smaller portion costing more for you to produce. If you were a large company what decision would you have made?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
That I do understand, but still it doesn't make any sense... The choices made would come down to clocks, voltage, lanes, features etc... not something not already possible to manipulate today. What on earth is so crucially different? But not different enough to allow it all to manipulated on an alternative platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
I am not trying to be an ass here, but simply trying to understand those decisions made by Intel.
I you were the FUD, I wouldn't think much about your information. But you present yourself as someone in the know, and I accept you as such, or else I wouldn't take your info seriously at all.
If you can't provide more than this, I accept that and thank you for your infos so far! I don't believe you lie, but I think you are not giving the complete picture here (NDA?).
But of course, I can be stupid, and let us then just leave it at that :)
A company wouldn't be interessted in the enthusiast platforms, just like they aren't in the current XE models and X motherboards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
No, I think I said it right. That ST board isn't meant for any other segment of the PC world and cost can never be a factor in what the board is designed for just as some may have hopped up honda civics and others hopped up Ferrari's.Quote:
Originally Posted by K404
Even with the ST you have vast options on a build.
Do you buy 2-$275.00 5420's or do you buy 2-$1500.00+ QX9775's?
Then there are the vid options..one or two.
ST can be kept to a reasonable cost(under $2000.00 total build price) or go nuts and drop $8000.00 on it.
There are also many more than the "2% that are real overclockers/benchers" that have interest in the ST board.
Not everyone thats an enthusiast is a diehard overclocker or bencher.
Fair enough. Frankly most folks here buy mid grade mobo's and chipsets pretty normally. We may debate whether you want a X48 or a X38 but often folks do end up with some kind of a ROG grade board from a good vendor (ROG is just an example of a quality level not that everyone buys Asus).
So chipset wise I'm not thinking this is a big deal. And a Skulltrail 2 would be different from a single socket Bloomfield, so that's ok too, imo. People would have a choice mainstream, enthusiast, enthusiast cpu x2. That's really not much different from now.
The real question is would there be a cheaper cpu, say $300-400 ish that would run on the "bloomfield cpu x1" board that you could OC? Said differently, as long as you are on the "enthusiast" board could you get a cheaper than EE level chip that you could OC?
From my interpretation of the above posts, you could be on the "right" chipset (Bloomfield) but if you still did not have a EE chip you couldn't OC.
To be fair to Blauhung, he works for Intel and I'm sure there's things he's not allowed to say and I respect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
On the other hand he's many times filled out what was speculation with facts and is a great asset to this forum.
One more thing;
I've gotten to know him a bit as he's helping on the WCG team and what I've seen is a decent guy who is here like the rest of us because he enjoys the hobby. I think this adds up to a win-win for everyone.:up:
Well, that confirm my thoughts: I'll understand his words better and what all this means, when things are more official :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Again, thanks for the heads up and early information, Blauhung. I need no more explanation :)
EDIT: If it wasn't clear I never doubted his informations or him being right, only my own ability to understand it.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, sorry if it comes out that way, and your not being stupid, as you are bringing up the good questions that need to be answered to keep people on track here. Really I'm just trying to clear up the fear mongering that normally just comes out of FUD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
The basic differences between the platforms are the amount of stuff that is integrated into the CPU package and how that affects where OC'ers can tweak stuff from.
On the high end Bloomfield parts, you have the Cores the cache as normal, plus a QPI controller and the 3 channel memory controller. All the clock generation is done on a PLL that is on the mobo and the reference frequency is set on the Tylersburg NB. To overclock here you can raise the QPI frequency as it will be the reference frequency that the CPU and memory speeds are split from with CPU multies and memory ratios. There will also be unlocked EE chips that allow CPU multiplier changes.
On Lynnfield which is where the bulk of this forum is interested. Intel moved all the rest of the NB functions onto the package. I'm not sure about the truth of the idea of an integrated PLL from the FUD article, but it makes sense to me. All the clock generation and splitting can now be done in the package and there is no need for any interconnect other then talking to the I/O hub/SB. Removing the interconnect/bus generates huge savings in latency and power consumption as everything is right there, and since there's less chips on the board, the manufacturing costs go down and that results in lower cost to the consumer. That is why the platform is setup this way. The unfortunate for us side effect is that the only ways one could overclock this system is to either alter how the PLL operates (it's in the package and most likely locked at whatever frequency it's set at) or change the multipliers on the CPU (they are also most likely locked). Really there's no way to change the speed once it is set after the binning process in the factory. Because Intel has compromised all the overclocking capabilities on the mainstream platform to save consumers money and power usage in the long run, they created the Bloomfield platform to do the best they can to give this comunity something to play with. Going as far as develping an offshoot of the server line that works very nicely as a High end desktop with a full set of OC capabilities.
hehe, thanks dude:up: and everyone remember, i'm not posting any inside info here, this is all stuff that's available outside. And I'm not speaking for the company just my own personal observations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
And real quick I wanted to present a counter point to those that are thinking about boycotting Intel systems in their decisions where they work.
I believe business decisions should still be about what gives the best bang for your buck. Middle of next year is about when both Intel and AMD mainstream systems should be in full swing. Say AMD does come out with better performance/Watt and $. More power to them and i would expect you to fill offices with their systems. If Intel puts out a system that wins in those categories over AMD then I would expect that to be the system of choice there.
Regardless of that outcome, those who would be voting with their purchases by buying AMD because Intel didn't release an overclockable mainstream platform, would be also voting against all the decisions that are based on reducing cost of purchase and improving power consumption in the mainstream desktop.
You sir (and probably many others), have then still understood what I couldn't. That I respect!Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Still, I thank you for the informations and conclusions. But I would like to ask a favor of you:
Could you provide links to the sources of information that lead to your conclusion and provided infos?; so that I may on my own, be able to learn more about these (more than I realized) complex platforms?
I kinda understand, that that integrating NB functions and optimizing for low power consumption on one platform, and not on another (or others) are the reasons for this complexity, I think?
Do you know if this was an initiative from management(or marketing) down or somthing the engineers themselves pushed for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
I thought Bloomfield was a highend workstation platform and the fact that it can be used also as a high end gaming/enthusiast platform was just an added bonus.
oh theyve been wanting to do this for a long time.. they can and they will.. can you blame them? cant really.. its all about $ $ $
theyve been loosing greatly to low $/clock cpus.. every single person on the planet that has ever overclocked an intel cpu.. intel lost $ big time.. at least thats how they see it
by creating these new platforms they can separate their desktop/extreme cpus into two secured markets that will bring in ~100% $.. atm the market is loose.. chaos.. out of control
in other words.. this is short of calling overclocking: "piracy"
well all things come to an end anyways.. so will cheap fun intel overclocking
until amd incorporates such.. cheap fun overclocking for long time on the green side
I am not so sure it is so simple anymore. It was a few hours ago to me, but the more I think about it, the more I believe there is something positive for all concerned parties about all of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Yes, it may be another money milking scheme, but I don't really think that it is. I would like some references, but I have done some reading on my own, and also used current platforms to compare with (along with positive and negatives), and I think Intel is actually right about this, if this is, what I now believe (and hope) it will be, eventually :confused:
These rumours are starting to sound plausible to me.
At present, everyone assumes that Intel moving the MCH onto the CPU itself will simply be their equivilent of the transistion AMD made with the Athlon 64. At present, AMD CPU's now have the HTT link which connects the graphics card, main system RAM, and devices that communicate through the chipset, directly to the CPU. AMD's implementation allows the user to alter the internal CPU FSB, and the HT link, provided the motherboard BIOS has the appropriate options. In short, there are two seperate data bus's, the CPU bus and HTT link.
However, when Intel move the MCH onto the CPU, they may very well have a single bus that controls the speed of the CPU, the main system memory, graphics card, and devices linked to the ICH (Southbridge). This basically means that their would be one main data bus. Obviously all subsiduary data bus's, such as the ageing PCI bus, would communicate with the CPU via the chipset.
At the very least this should have some effect on production costs that may in turn effec how much Nehalem CPU's will retail for. I'm sure that power requirements would be lowered somewhat but there's no way to tell at present whether they would be lowered by any significant ammount.
To sum up my opinion, if this turns out to be true it will all boil down to good old fashioned price and performance. If a new Intel CPU performs better than an overclocked AMD that costs the same amount of money, I'll go Intel, otherwise it's AMD. Nevertheless there's not much more that can be said on the matter until more information is released.
You know there are some folks posting here who are worse than Fudo and that Shacoocoo guy. Fugger and the gang are about Xtreme Overclocking, not Bang for Buck overclocking, that's some other site, not this one. Thanks Dewd for clearing this up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Not to knock the cheap guys at all. No detail but just in General will there be any Legacy Processors for Sc-775/771 or will they truly die?