Intel plans to deliberately limit Sandy Bridge overclocking

Since majority agree the slides are fake removing slides so as not to create confusion.

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.

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.

---

This is interesting and baffling in a way.
If for the sake of argument the upcoming Intel SB cpu's can't be overclocked they'd have to be a heck of a lot more powerfull clock for clock than the Westmere cpu's to just compete true?
I mean why in God's name would I spend the money to upgrade to the next platform if I could get more computational power from the one I own now?
Now I've seen Intel make one huge mistake recently( Becktons done on 45nm vs 32nm) which I couldn't understand.
I hope they don't make two mistakes in a row.

On a personal note they will have to make one hell of a dualie platform to match what two westmere's can do today on a EVGA SR2 board.
That board/chip combo may hold top honors for longer than anyone expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villa1n

I have a hard time believing this.. cellphone directly to the head, yes.. that makes sense

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?

---

Mostly a load of junk as far as I can tell. I'm cautious though on the subject, could be that a diet which gets lots of metals into your blood stream makes you an antenna :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Now I've seen Intel make one huge mistake recently( Becktons done on 45nm vs 32nm) which I couldn't understand.

---

It's no mistake, its just they can't do it any faster. Beckton was first cpu for S1567 which means it needs a lot of validation time, plus its need enterprise/mainframe grade validation... can't compare that to S1336.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

It's no mistake, its just they can't do it any faster. Beckton was first cpu for S1567 which means it needs a lot of validation time, plus its need enterprise/mainframe grade validation... can't compare that to S1336.

---

Not that I doubt you because I find your info to be generally spot on but explain to me whey they announced 3 months after debut that the Becktons are going to 32nm?
What I saw is that the quad Beckton systems were power hogs( 1300w at load) and we're getting their asses handed to them in many benchmarks by AMD's quad MC systems..
Sort of said to me they realised they made a big boo-boo and were fixing it.

hmmm my friend tell me that
there will be LGA2011 instead of LGA1567???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Not that I doubt you because I find your info to be generally spot on but explain to me whey they announced 3 months after debut that the Becktons are going to 32nm?
What I saw is that the quad Beckton systems were power hogs( 1300w at load) and we're getting their asses handed to them in many benchmarks by AMD's quad MC systems..
Sort of said to me they realised they made a big boo-boo and were fixing it.

---

I think Intel's 32nm just isn't as refined as they'd like it to be, they just don't seem happy making big chips on it. The i7 970 and 980x prices are sky high, and they are using the smaller mainstream to lead the SB assault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Not that I doubt you because I find your info to be generally spot on but explain to me whey they announced 3 months after debut that the Becktons are going to 32nm?
What I saw is that the quad Beckton systems were power hogs( 1300w at load) and we're getting their asses handed to them in many benchmarks by AMD's quad MC systems..
Sort of said to me they realised they made a big boo-boo and were fixing it.

---

becktons are moving into itanium's territory where low end systems can cost 100k (iirc, or it might be closer to a million), no cruncher would buy one but they would be appropriate for the HPC needs of businesses in the financial/medical sector etc. maybe intel's mistake is leaving a gap between 2p 1366 and beckton where AMD can grab market share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

:confused: :stick:

then how can you defend intel for breaking bclock adjustments?
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:

---

With all Due respect, you are trying to teach driving to the world champion of F1 ... the team working on SandyB is probably one of the best in the industry.

It is always easy to say "They should add this, or that" , or "adding a simple divider or multiplier" ... If it was that simple, it would have been done ... :shakes:

It is always easy from your desk to say what to do, just try to even do one cell of those processors, and you ll realize that the complexity of the subsystem you try to do is so much larger than what your brain can comprehend without years of training ...

I think you need to learn a little bit how to value the work of others, and stop thinking you are the only one with the pure trues. (Again, with all respect due).
SandyB is the merge of many PC subsystem into one chip, and I don't think you have the knowledge to appreciate the complexity of the task.

The architects and designers of SandyBridge are very hard working people, and thinking that we did not try to put a clock divider or multiplier is kind of insulting.

there are very good reason for what we get, and I will did not give up on it, neither the Overclocking task force inside Intel.

We are working hard, put your opinion in your pocket for now, and wait. :up:

Again, some time, just temper your opinion, you just don't have the facts in your hands to talk.

Best regards, this is my personal opinion.

Francois Piednoel

Quote:

---

the team working on SandyB is probably one of the best in the industry.

---

Quote:

---

We are working hard, put your opinion in your pocket for now, and wait.

---

couldnt agree more :)
i watched a few of the SB presentations from IDF, and it is just mind blowing, the complexity and the sheer amount of brainpower these guys have.
The new Turbo Mode is just amazing, the simplicity of the idea behind it, yet the amazing complexity of actually integrating that in and making it work...
I am more excited about SB than i have been for a long time. If you guys want insight, go to the IDF presentations web page.
overclocking will be there, it always is, if you are dedicated enough :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

With all Due respect, you are trying to teach driving to the world champion of F1 ... the team working on SandyB is probably one of the best in the industry.

It is always easy to say "They should add this, or that" , or "adding a simple divider or multiplier" ... If it was that simple, it would have been done ... :shakes:

It is always easy from your desk to say what to do, just try to even do one cell of those processors, and you ll realize that the complexity of the subsystem you try to do is so much larger than what your brain can comprehend without years of training ...

I think you need to learn a little bit how to value the work of others, and stop thinking you are the only one with the pure trues. (Again, with all respect due).
SandyB is the merge of many PC subsystem into one chip, and I don't think you have the knowledge to appreciate the complexity of the task.

The architects and designers of SandyBridge are very hard working people, and thinking that we did not try to put a clock divider or multiplier is kind of insulting.

there are very good reason for what we get, and I will did not give up on it, neither the Overclocking task force inside Intel.

We are working hard, put your opinion in your pocket for now, and wait. :up:

Again, some time, just temper your opinion, you just don't have the facts in your hands to talk.

Best regards, this is my personal opinion.

Francois Piednoel

---

he will also be putting his money in his pocket as well, until he has a satisfactory answer/opinion of SB. remember we are not chip designers, i am sure the sandy bridge team is one of teh best, we are consumers.

100% agree !
Is it true that the SNB (Gesher) team was put together in 2004? When did the development kick off? It's unbelieveable if you imagine how much time did it took and what architectures have been on market by that time... Can u tell us few stories about the internal development team?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

With all Due respect, you are trying to teach driving to the world champion of F1 ... the team working on SandyB is probably one of the best in the industry.

It is always easy to say "They should add this, or that" , or "adding a simple divider or multiplier" ... If it was that simple, it would have been done ... :shakes:

It is always easy from your desk to say what to do, just try to even do one cell of those processors, and you ll realize that the complexity of the subsystem you try to do is so much larger than what your brain can comprehend without years of training ...

I think you need to learn a little bit how to value the work of others, and stop thinking you are the only one with the pure trues. (Again, with all respect due).
SandyB is the merge of many PC subsystem into one chip, and I don't think you have the knowledge to appreciate the complexity of the task.

The architects and designers of SandyBridge are very hard working people, and thinking that we did not try to put a clock divider or multiplier is kind of insulting.

there are very good reason for what we get, and I will did not give up on it, neither the Overclocking task force inside Intel.

We are working hard, put your opinion in your pocket for now, and wait. :up:

Again, some time, just temper your opinion, you just don't have the facts in your hands to talk.

Best regards, this is my personal opinion.

Francois Piednoel

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mumak

100% agree !
Is it true that the SNB (Gesher) team was put together in 2004? When did the development kick off? It's unbelieveable if you imagine how much time did it took and what architectures have been on market by that time... Can u tell us few stories about the internal development team?

---

I can't comment about how we organize our teams, Paul Otellini and his management team did an awesome job at giving us what ever we need to be good, fast and furious on performance ... Since Conroe, we are doing very well. Jack, Bob and Hofer, Tom teams are working like they are sitting next to each other, in fact, they are all over the planete ...
Jack and Bob were the architects of Conroe/Merom.

The amount of innovation was shown at IDF, SB is an amazing piece of silicon, and you are not done yet discovering how good it is ... :rofl: :yepp: :ROTF:

I appreciate how lucky I am to work with those teams every day and participate at the next revolution of computing. we had an internet before and after MP3 ... you 'll have one before and after MP4 ...
it is videos where you want it, when you want it.

exciting!

take it easy
:up:

And whats true about canceling LGA2011 for SB megahighend at 3Q 2011? Thx :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

The amount of innovation was shown at IDF, SB is an amazing piece of silicon, and you are not done yet discovering how good it is ... :rofl: :yepp: :ROTF:

---

I'm listening! :up:

Thanks for your time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

With all Due respect, you are trying to teach driving to the world champion of F1 ... the team working on SandyB is probably one of the best in the industry.

---

you got it upside down :D

it was my point that intels engineers are doing an awesome job, and thats exactly why i dont buy this "we tried to have bclock overclocking on 1155 but couldnt get it done"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

It is always easy to say "They should add this, or that" , or "adding a simple divider or multiplier" ... If it was that simple, it would have been done ... :shakes:

---

my bad, i didnt mean to say it was a trivial thing to do... i just cant believe that its that hard to pull off...

you guys could run your off-die memory controllers asynchronously to the fsb, and once you moved on-die, you found another, and better, way to clock it async... dont tell me some of the best if not THE best engineers out there cant come up with a way to allow for bclock overclocking... or, for that matter, figure out why the dmi bus wont overclock past a few percent when its based on pciE which overclocks 10x higher ;)

im pretty sure its the protocol or the buffers and not the physical interface, so i dont get why its so hard to at least enable bclocks of 115 or 120...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

I think you need to learn a little bit how to value the work of others, and stop thinking you are the only one with the pure trues. (Again, with all respect due).

---

i call it how i see it...
and i think i need to change the way i explain things since i dont think that what i say is the ultimate truth at all... its the most sense i can make out of things, and im actually really happy every time somebody corrects me and helps me to learn and understand things in more detail :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

SandyB is the merge of many PC subsystem into one chip, and I don't think you have the knowledge to appreciate the complexity of the task.

---

from an engineering pov, definitely not... from a consumers pov, definitely yes... and isnt that what REALLY matters?
who do you build chips for? other engineers so they can appreciate the effort and beauty of the design? or normal users that use those chips to change the world and try to make it a better place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

The architects and designers of SandyBridge are very hard working people, and thinking that we did not try to put a clock divider or multiplier is kind of insulting.

---

i dont think so... i see it exactly the other way around, claiming that those hard working bright and experienced people failed in getting it done is insulting...

it would hurt stock bclock cpu speeds
it would hurt pciE signal integrity
it would cost too much
it would delay the launch of the platform
it wasnt important enough of a feature in the idea of the big guys
etc etc...

i can accept any of those reasons, but dont tell me they just couldnt get it working... if that isnt insulting to them then what is?
really francois, even if its not true, you should use any of the above reasons instead of saying they couldnt get it done... cause pr wise, that makes them and intel look pretty bad... :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

Again, some time, just temper your opinion, you just don't have the facts in your hands to talk.

---

if i had them, what would be the point to talk? ;)
isnt that why people talk to begin with? to understand and learn?
well, not all people... *looks around* most women certainly dont :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

Best regards, this is my personal opinion.
Francois Piednoel

---

cheers for replying, and cheers for not getting offended by my bluntness :D :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

I can't comment about how we organize our teams, Paul Otellini and his management team did an awesome job at giving us what ever we need to be good, fast and furious on performance ... Since Conroe, we are doing very well. Jack, Bob and Hofer, Tom teams are working like they are sitting next to each other, in fact, they are all over the planete ...
Jack and Bob were the architects of Conroe/Merom.

---

do you know who worked on banias?
my favorite cpu :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

I appreciate how lucky I am to work with those teams every day and participate at the next revolution of computing. we had an internet before and after MP3 ... you 'll have one before and after MP4 ...
it is videos where you want it, when you want it.

exciting!

---

definitely... i dont think im alone when i say i envy you for being a part of the process :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

And whats true about canceling LGA2011 for SB megahighend at 3Q 2011? Thx :)

---

mhhhh
i havent heard that yet... if its true i hope intel will at least go for multipliers above 57... otherwise that would be a pretty stupid move...

if you think about it, it would def be cheaper to have it all on one platform... then again, the current per pin limit of 1155 might be a serious issue... and its dual channel only... mhhhh nah, i dont think intel would do this...
they need 2011 either way, and adding bclock overclocking should be a minor task if it isnt already in the 2011 server package...

i mean think about it, worst case scenario intels enthusiast team doesnt want to pay to have bclock ocing on the 2011 platform, even then all they need to do is have 2011 cpus with unlocked multipliers and voila, there you have your enthusiast platform... so i think this rumor is bs...

man saaya do you ever stop? its getting reallllly old and reallllly annoying.



Dr.Who

Thanks for the info - I enjoy reading about CPU stuff from people that actually know what they are talking about and have had a hand in making it. Its refreshing.

I've always wondered...I dunno if you can share since it might fall under the "how teams are put together" umbrella that you mentioned earlier, but who decides what team works on which tock/tick..Is just assigned based on their strengths and weakness's?

I know you guys have at least 2 teams working on each different uARCH/tock.....I've noticed a few patterns, the Conroe/Sb team focus on more revolutionary changes with "smaller" but efficient design focus, starting from mobile/mainstream desktop and then up..where the Oregon team (Nehalem so far, and im guessing Haswell?) focus on pure raw performance targeting high-end first and then on down..(not that nehalem was inefficient)

Are these teams communicating between tocks to make sure their designs are similar or on a same path? Or does it even matter?

I have 1000 questions..haha But I will stop there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by god_43

he will also be putting his money in his pocket as well, until he has a satisfactory answer/opinion of SB. remember we are not chip designers, i am sure the sandy bridge team is one of teh best, we are consumers.

---

If you're JUST a consumer, then why the heck are you posting on an OC forum? you're mre than a consumer, you're an enthusiast - don't kid yourself.

oh its public now... :D
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/3...00916intel.png

igp can be adjusted in /2 bclock steps... ok...
memory can be adjusted in bclock x2.66 steps... uhmmm ok...?

didnt you say it was really difficult to add a multiplier or divider to amplify bclock increments? yet somehow intel miraculously did both, it just didnt work for cpu bclock for SOME reason ;)

100 bclock
x2.66 x10 1066
x2.66 x11 1333
x2.66 x12 1600
x2.66 x13 1866 (omg, t3h return of 1866! :D)
x2.66 x14 2133
x2.66 x15 2400
x2.66 x16 2666

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

man saaya do you ever stop? its getting reallllly old and reallllly annoying.

---

bite my shiny metal 4ss :D
then what are you doing here reading my posts?
theres an ignore button :)
hmmm i wonder if vb finally added a feature to block quotes of the blocked member by a third party as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

I've always wondered...I dunno if you can share since it might fall under the "how teams are put together" umbrella that you mentioned earlier, but who decides what team works on which tock/tick..Is just assigned based on their strengths and weakness's?

---

hah, im curious about that too... would be hilarious if its according to some intel tradition like a random number generator based on one of intels first microcontrollers :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

I
And or those who say you are a consumer and dont care about Dr.Who's point about the beauty and complexity behind SB, then why the heck are you posting on an OC forum? You're not JUST a consumer - don't kid yourself.

---

so enthusiasts are not consumers? i see what you mean but 90% of overclockers have no idea of cpu arch, bios coding, fabbing etc... why? cause it doesnt matter for what we do...

That info and slide has been out for awhile...old news saaya


Saaya I like to read these forums to learn and quench my thirst for things Im passionate about. I typically read just the news section because that is where I find the most interesting things being discussed by knowledgeable people. In every single one of these threads it seems you have to chime in with something negative to say. Its hard not read your posts, especially when they take up 80% of the page with you're multi-quotes. I've now pretty much trained myself to pass your posts because I feel I never learn anything by reading them - no offense I just feel you post just "hear yourself talk" so to speak. Dr. Who respectfully brought up some interesting points about how you come off and you still yap away disregarding everything he said. It's just annoying man..Especially when more interesting and positive things can be discussed.

Think about it, you have someone from Intel here who actually posts and responds and has worked on the product we're all salivating/hating on - It's a privledged opportunity - And the same goes for anyone from AMD that posts here

Why waste time arguing with him/them about such petty bs? ARGH


/end rant/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

so enthusiasts are not consumers? i see what you mean but 90% of overclockers have no idea of cpu arch, bios coding, fabbing etc... why? cause it doesnt matter for what we do...

---

:shakes:This is a perfect example..Holy crap. You quoted me, yet you don't even read the whole thing AND have the nerve to post something back that is completely wrong. I capitalized JUST twice and italicized it and you still missed it. Want me to quote myself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics View Post
You're not JUST a consumer - don't kid yourself.

---

:shrug:

I'd say that the killing of BUS (BCLK) OC on mainstream platforms was rather a political than technical decision. Plus get more things under own control like clock control - started on NHM with BTM and finalized on SNB with FCIM (iME/ICC own firmware)..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

If you're JUST a consumer, then why the heck are you posting on an OC forum? you're mre than a consumer, you're an enthusiast - don't kid yourself.

---

...what? you do know what a consumer means right? lol i consume their products....i buy them....lol i would put this in my sig but.....i am honestly too lazy right now.

:rofl::ROTF::clap:

Saaya:
You say you call it as you see it and so don't I.
I don't always agree with what Intel does and like you I don't like seeing the "normal" over clocking method removed but I think he was spot on in his response to you.
Now I don't know the "why's" of what they did and why the adjustments to BCLK are tied to everything else but maybe it was a business decision based on money.
Imagine your Intel 2 years back..
You release the cheap i7-920 and the expensive i7-965 then i7-975 but no ones buying the 965/975 because they are getting the same numbers or better from overclocked 920's.
If you owned the company I bet you'd be screaming that "next time around we're stopping this crap" and you'd be right.
I'm not saying this is what happenned but it is a logical presumption on my part.
Last:
I don't give a tinkers damn if the only way to OC the machine is with the multi IF and I repreat IF it gives more computational power/electrical cost than the current westmeres( which ain't that bad! )
Aslo from what few numbers I've seen these SB chips are faster clock for clock than the Gulftown/Westmere's we have now.
Not mind boggling but 10-20% faster depending on which bench is run.
That's not too shabby over what I already see as an excellent cpu.:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

so enthusiasts are not consumers?.

---

Of course enthusiast are consumers, they are a particular demographic of the consumer base... but we are the smallest, by far. We are also the most vocal in what we want :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

That info and slide has been out for awhile...old news saaya

---

and...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

Saaya I like to read these forums to learn and quench my thirst for things Im passionate about. I typically read just the news section because that is where I find the most interesting things being discussed by knowledgeable people. In every single one of these threads it seems you have to chime in with something negative to say. Its hard not read your posts, especially when they take up 80% of the page with you're multi-quotes. I've now pretty much trained myself to pass your posts because I feel I never learn anything by reading them - no offense I just feel you post just "hear yourself talk" so to speak. Dr. Who respectfully brought up some interesting points about how you come off and you still yap away disregarding everything he said. It's just annoying man..Especially when more interesting and positive things can be discussed.

---

i dont get why you dont hit the ignore button then :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

Think about it, you have someone from Intel here who actually posts and responds and has worked on the product we're all salivating/hating on - It's a privledged opportunity - And the same goes for anyone from AMD that posts here

---

who is hating about a product? this thread is mostly about how overclocking is limited on sb, how its still possible, and the last pages are mostly about why intel might have made certain decisions... who is hating? i cant recall anybody in this thread bashing sb... how could they, its not even out yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

Why waste time arguing with him/them about such petty bs? ARGH

---

cause its not petty at all, at least not to me, and cause i dont like people trying to fool and mislead others. claiming that intel just couldnt get bclock overclocking to work is nothing but a lie, and i cant believe im the only one who feels annoyed about this. like i said, giving us any reason or no reason at all i could accept, but "we really wanted to support you guys and enable bclock overclocking but its just not possible" is rubbing me the wrong way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

:shakes:This is a perfect example..Holy crap. You quoted me, yet you don't even read the whole thing AND have the nerve to post something back that is completely wrong. I capitalized JUST twice and italicized it and you still missed it. Want me to quote myself?
:shrug:

---

geez, chill out man... check my post, i quoted you before you had edited your post to make it more clear...

your saying enthusiasts are more than consumers
im saying enthusiasts are less than engineers (as in appreciating a design for its beauty and not its performance and features)

so we actually agree and probably mean the same thing... whats with all the hate? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mumak

I'd say that the killing of OC on mainstream platforms was rather a political than technical decision. Plus get more things under own control like clock control - started on NHM with BTM and finalized on SNB with FCIM (iME/ICC own firmware)..

---

thats what i think as well... im not sure if it was political or financially motivated... but i just cant believe it was technically impossible...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Saaya:
You say you call it as you see it and so don't I.

---

you mean you dont call it as you see it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I don't always agree with what Intel does and like you I don't like seeing the "normal" over clocking method removed but I think he was spot on in his response to you.

---

you mean claiming that intel tried real hard but just couldnt get it to work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Now I don't know the "why's" of what they did and why the adjustments to BCLK are tied to everything else but maybe it was a business decision based on money.

---

well one signal is a lot easier to handle than several, it makes perfect sense... and yes, i think it was most likely a financial decision... do you know how tiny a pci controller in the sb is? do you know how little impact it has on the mfg cost to remove it? i asked intel guys why they were so agressive in cutting down features that werent 100% necessary and they told me, every since transistor they remove, when scaled up to the hundreds of millions of chips they manufacture, results in a real sum of money... and you have to justify that sum of money to somebody at some point... and hey, that makes perfect sense! and it shows how efficient intel works, which is great... i love efficiency!

but it also means that if a feature was removed, it was done to save money, because it wasnt considered necessary... now while i hate to see a feature removed that i like, i can accept it... but when somebody is spreading the word on how much intel appreciates people who use said feature, and is oh so sorry for not being able to implement it, it just wasnt possible... then thats too much and im not just going to sit there and watch it... :shrug:

if intel would lock all overclocking and all multipliers, id rant about it, but i could accept it if it makes sense to them financially... its annoying but you cant really expect somebody to blow money on something that hurts their competitive position in the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Imagine your Intel 2 years back..
You release the cheap i7-920 and the expensive i7-965 then i7-975 but no ones buying the 965/975 because they are getting the same numbers or better from overclocked 920's.

---

better even :D
but that was intels problem for not binning properly...
and actually i know a loooot of people that did buy 965 and 975 chips, because especially when x58 was new, boards wouldnt go much above 220bclock and that just wasnt enough...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

If you owned the company I bet you'd be screaming that "next time around we're stopping this crap" and you'd be right.

---

not necessarily... this is a lot like the MPIAA and RIAA argument of how much money piracy supposedly costs them every year...

i only know very few people that could afford a 965 and 975 and didnt get one... and they did it cause intel didnt bin properly and 965 chips had cr4ppy imcs and didnt clock as well as 920s for some reason. as soon as somebody could afford it, i saw them get a xeon or a 940 or 950 or 965 or 975... i really dont think anybody who went for a 920 would have paid double to get a 940 back then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Last:
I don't give a tinkers damn if the only way to OC the machine is with the multi IF and I repreat IF it gives more computational power/electrical cost than the current westmeres( which ain't that bad! )
Aslo from what few numbers I've seen these SB chips are faster clock for clock than the Gulftown/Westmere's we have now.
Not mind boggling but 10-20% faster depending on which bench is run.
That's not too shabby over what I already see as an excellent cpu.:up:

---

yeah sure, im excited about sb as well... if anything itll be fun to see how hard it really is to get another .1% overclock out of it :D

my main interest is still a replacement for my culv laptop... i loooove culv, it completely blew but as soon as alienware and asus enabled overclocking it turned into an incredibly efficient platform... if only we could adjust vid tables and chipset voltage... i hope mobile sb gets there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

I can't comment about how we organize our teams, Paul Otellini and his management team did an awesome job at giving us what ever we need to be good, fast and furious on performance ... Since Conroe, we are doing very well. Jack, Bob and Hofer, Tom teams are working like they are sitting next to each other, in fact, they are all over the planete ...
Jack and Bob were the architects of Conroe/Merom.

The amount of innovation was shown at IDF, SB is an amazing piece of silicon, and you are not done yet discovering how good it is ... :rofl: :yepp: :ROTF:

I appreciate how lucky I am to work with those teams every day and participate at the next revolution of computing. we had an internet before and after MP3 ... you 'll have one before and after MP4 ...
it is videos where you want it, when you want it.

exciting!

take it easy
:up:

---

Is the reason for the the lack of base clock adjustment partly due the to new Ring bus? When I read it about I was pretty impressed, especially how well it handles voltage domains changes.

If it was a choice between granularity on overclock and the ringbus I think you guys made the right choice. But does this mean you're still working on it for SB-E as the clock generator is back on the board for that, or does the fact that SB-E doesn't have a GPU mean the problem is gone?

IMO what saaya is trying to get (not that is easy to understand with such amount of quotes :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: ) is just a little explanation about why overclocking has been down-graded from other arquitectures.

I don't think he never meant to challenge the team behind SB, but he is just trying to understand the why. In a way he is like me, as we are not ok when we are told no unless they tell us why, because that way we understand the reason fully and are able to use it in another level and comprehend the reasons behind it.

Just my 2 cents.

PS: if Francois can't talk about that "why", he should just say so, aka "can't talk about why we did things the way we did but can assure you we had our reasons".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prava

IMO what saaya is trying to get (not that is easy to understand with such amount of quotes :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: ) is just a little explanation about why overclocking has been down-graded from other arquitectures.

I don't think he never meant to challenge the team behind SB,

---

i think he did a little, and i think he is right
if the team is so awesome, as that has seem to have been pointed out constantly, why did they get stuck, or was this really a decision from managers who wanted more $ per mm2

i cant recall a single cpu that ever used different bus speeds, everything on stock parts was always controlled with multipliers, so why did this one have to change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

With all Due respect, you are trying to teach driving to the world champion of F1 ... the team working on SandyB is probably one of the best in the industry.

It is always easy to say "They should add this, or that" , or "adding a simple divider or multiplier" ... If it was that simple, it would have been done ... :shakes:

It is always easy from your desk to say what to do, just try to even do one cell of those processors, and you ll realize that the complexity of the subsystem you try to do is so much larger than what your brain can comprehend without years of training ...

---

your company has been designing microprocessors for 40 years. they should be able to understand what's going on. any good hardware designer should have an grasp on how modules work in parallel. imo it's not that hard. the only things that are hard to understand are the simplest as they can not be explained in simpler terms.

to put what i am saying as simply as possible, i dont care if you say it's hard. i have very high standards for a company with 40 billion dollars of revenue annually and you have made a sub par cpu. keep in mind this is coming from a guy who owns 2 i7's. yes, i cheated on the 920. she just doesnt appreciate my overclocking abilities anymore. i even OCed here till she reached Tjmax.:shrug:

Quote:

---

The architects and designers of SandyBridge are very hard working people, and thinking that we did not try to put a clock divider or multiplier is kind of insulting.

---

they should work smarter, not harder. you can say what you want about your design teams but the chip consumers buy is going to reveal more. imo intel has not shafted me with sandy bridge, they just made something i dont care about. maybe some one else will deliver.

After playing with a 655k I must say I hope there is at least some wiggle room for the bclk even if it requires going below 100MHz(if that's indeed the baseclock stock MHz). With 100MHz increments possible the cores can easily get within well.. 100MHz of what they will max out at. I however worry about the other fun things like memory and uncore. I'd hate to have to choose between 2400C9, 2133C7, or 1866C6. Where's my 2050C6 :D

Theres no uncore anymore in SB, it runs the same freq. as the core clock, due to the ringbus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Theres no uncore anymore in SB, it runs the same freq. as the core clock, due to the ringbus.

---

And thats the whole issue in a nutshell.
It's the lack of being able to tweak that has people upset and I understand those feelings.
It is that tweaking that shows these people's talents and ultimately shows a platforms max capability.
Ialso heard that some of the motherboard manufacturer's are trying to find a way around this WITH Intels help.
Let's see how this plays out before we tar and feather them.:D

People have a short memory and are exaggerating. There was no uncore part in any intel cpu till nehalem, even though there where cpus that had L3 cache.

Actually im glad they removed the sparate clock domain for the L3 cache and now it runs at core frequency. You don't have to worry anymore about at which speed you have to run your uncore part so that you can run a certain mem frequency. Good old stuff from pre nehalem returns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

People have a short memory and are exaggerating. There was no uncore part in any intel cpu till nehalem, even though there where cpus that had L3 cache.

Actually im glad they removed the sparate clock domain for the L3 cache and now it runs at core frequency. You don't have to worry anymore about at which speed you have to run your uncore part so that you can run a certain mem frequency. Good old stuff from pre nehalem returns.

---

No, your right, you don't have to worry, but then again look at what we can do with those Nehalems that we wouldn't if they were designed like SB..:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

No, your right, you don't have to worry, but then again look at what we can do with those Nehalems that we wouldn't if they were designed like SB..:D

---

Which is no problem since most will use S2011 anyway as it replaces S1366, nothing changed there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Which is no problem since most will use S2011 anyway as it replaces S1366, nothing changed there.

---

But,But I don't want them to replace socket 1366.
It's been SOOOOOOOO good to us!:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

But,But I don't want them to replace socket 1366.
It's been SOOOOOOOO good to us!:rofl:

---

Wow! That is a bit strange argument. S775 was good also... as well as socket 7. And I'm sure S2011 will be good also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Wow! That is a bit strange argument. S775 was good also... as well as socket 7. And I'm sure S2011 will be good also.

---

Comment made only 1/2 seriously.
Yes, agree, moving on is smart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Theres no uncore anymore in SB, it runs the same freq. as the core clock, due to the ringbus.

---

they changed the name of the uncore to the system agent. yes, it no longer has the L3 but it's still the "uncore". it still has important stuff like PCIe, mem controllers, power control unit, DMI, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

they changed the name of the uncore to the system agent. yes, it no longer has the L3 but it's still the "uncore". it still has important stuff like PCIe, mem controllers, power control unit, DMI, etc.

---

Yes but its far more seperated then in nehalem, where memcontroller and L3 cache where the main parts of the uncore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

And thats the whole issue in a nutshell.
It's the lack of being able to tweak that has people upset and I understand those feelings.
It is that tweaking that shows these people's talents and ultimately shows a platforms max capability.
Ialso heard that some of the motherboard manufacturer's are trying to find a way around this WITH Intels help.
Let's see how this plays out before we tar and feather them.:D

---

:shocked: :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Yes but its far more seperated then in nehalem, where memcontroller and L3 cache where the main parts of the uncore.

---

define "separated" and separated from what? what the uncore does has changed in SB but it's goal is still the same (easier on die integration of system components).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

define "separated" and separated from what? what the uncore does has changed in SB but it's goal is still the same (easier on die integration of system components).

---

Seperated as in not anymore bound to the mem controller. In nahelem the L3 is is on a different voltage and frequency plane then the core. In SB the L3 is on the same voltage and freq. plane as the cores.

Now everything down to the L3 counts as core, and everything else as SA (beside the IGP and the en-/decoder logic).

Intel so worried about money and people OCing a 300.00 chip over a 1200.00 chip they need to narrow the price gap.

price the CPUs at 250 , 350 ,450 and 980X type chips at 750 not $1,200

at $750 they make good profit and you aren't paying double or tripple the price for a simple multi unlock.

I mean a i7-950 is $279.00 for 3.06ghz and a i7-960 is 579.00 for 3.2ghz and a i7-980X is $949.00 for 3.33ghz (per newegg)

anyone else see the greedy BS going on???

Anybody know about Z68 Chipset?