Printable View
imo its intel being greedy making design decisions to monetize mainstream overclocking. id rather spend extra dough on better hsf than pay intel for the 'privilage'. especially when privilage happens to be limited multipliers. not everyone buys $1000 cpu and §700 motherboards.but looking at the performance and no competetion from AMD i'll hold my nose and buy one :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
Mainstream overclocking is a blip on their balance sheet.Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
Its funny how you still say the same thing over and over again, when its wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
You dont need to spend 1000$ to get a unlocked cpu, plus with unlocked multis you don't need expensive mobos, hell i bet with SB even the cheapest mobos gets the same exact oc as a highend SB 1155 board. The only thing that has to be up for the task is the power circuit.
I'm sure Intel will hold their nose when they take your money...Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
You've pretty good nailed it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Some ppl here somehow tend to forget who actually invited the idea to fine premium for an unlocked multipliers.
then why not unlock multipliers on all mainstream chips? they are obviously trying to monetize it trying to make even the blip count.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
They are ... they are offering K skus with unlocked multi's ... a 2500K looks like it will go for about 200 bucks. I only buy unlocked multi CPUs anymore, both the 1000 and the cheapo (meaning low cost) AMD variety myself. More knobs to play with to figure out various impacts of various components of the system as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
btw. anyone knows if turbo was enabled on the GPU?
I doubt it since it is controlled by the PCU and if its diabled for the CPU there is a high chance that it is also disabled for the GPU. So this numbers might even increase a bit, since the 2400 can turbo the gpu up to 1,1ghz.
i doubt quad channel mobo will be under$400 at the very least and cheapest quad under 350 . thats 400 extra for overclocking choices other than multipliers. quad channels dont mean much performancewise and 2011 quads wouldnt be that much performance increase over 1355 quads. so yeah 400extra for 2011 overclocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
sure hex/octacore will be huge but they will be atleasst 600+ not mainstream..
I don't even want quad channel, much more risk of a RAM stick failure with 4 sticks compared to 2 (I've dealt with too much annoying slow-death micron DDR2 failures already) and overclocking 2 RAM sticks is easier than 4. :D Sure the performance won't be quite as good but I don't expect the huge extra cost LGA2011 setup will be worth it in practice for the more performance/cost ratio minded person. It sounds like it might even be a bit expensier at launch than X58 was. SB sounds exciting to me but AMD's offering also does and I'm no fanboy of any company (for CPU it stands 5 AMD vs 3 Intel CPUs used so far) so it'll be interesting times ahead.
well k series will cost more for one and all youll get is limited unlocked multipliers. if you want more overclocking choice well have to shell out atleast 400 more for 2011 setup compared to similarly performing 1355 setupQuote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
While also agree they wont be cheap, mobo makers have few choices to make em cheaper. Same as they did for S1336. Instead of 8 mem slots they just can put 4 on it. And other thing to save money.Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
Good mobos still will costs 300-400€ maybe even more, but I also think there will be S2011 boards the can break the sub 250€ range.
Again we don't know the SKUs intel will offer for S2011.
If you mean limited as in 57, which means 5,7ghz, then yes they are limited...Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
It's all relative, 200 bucks is more than what? It is certainly more than an 80 buck Celeron no doubt. So yeah, it will probably come with a 30 or 40 buck premium. An I7-870 goes for 289, a 875K for 329. People will need to make up their minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
In terms of OCing, what choices do you want -- unlocked multipliers make it even easier. I don't really get what you mean by limited unlocked multipliers.
Certainly, AMD will exploit this with similarly prices CPUs on their own. AMD has always catered more to the enthusiast overclocking crowd as well.
In a less stringent way, AMD will need to go a similar route anyway meaning offer up mainstream/consumer oriented skus and also support higher-end platforms. Integrating the GPU on to the CPU has it's advantages and disadvanges, BD will not have the GPU and will cater to a different socket for high end DTs -- you can bet it will be cheaper though.
But it is all relative, AMD or Intel will feature out CPUs into the market it is up to what performance, features, things people are willing to pay or not pay for. It really makes no difference.
Just because it's 4 channel does not mean you need to run it 4 channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
Well why pay extra for 4 channel then if you're only gonna use 2 sticks anyway. Yes there will be other differences but still.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Good point, just don't get a 2011 at all and you should be happy. But for that matter, why do you pay for 2 dual channels (4 dimms) -- why pay the extra, you should demand that AMD and Intel remove that extra channel that you don't want to pay for.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
How long will this new socket last?
I don't want to buy a SB if they're going to nerf out in 1 years time to another three sockets.
At least till haswell is coming. (H1 2013, maybe even later)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
Seems like it might be worth forgoing BD straight to SB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Your opinion, huh? Imagine that : a corporation intent on becoming ever more wealthy. What a concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
Well looks about the right time for my first post here.
What's with the 1355 socket mentioned in the last few posts? I've heard something about it in the past but thought that intel got rid of it and only lga1155 and lga2011 were to made it. What's it gonna bring to the table?
Anyone have any idea what the actual "core name" is gonna be for initial 1155 sandy? I mean like what bloomfield is to nehalem or gulftown to westmere for instance.
I'm totally for sandy compared to the current i7 bloomfield lineup(9xx included) as far as you didn't already own one. I'm gonna play the waiting game here with sandy hope it's the right choice. Just the rumored prices need to end up real. The only thing I kind of dislike is the limited PCI-e lines and the dual channel memory( 6 gigs seemed more in the right spot for me than either 4 or 8 gigs available now). And I hope that bulldozer is a nice leap for AMD too. It's only gonna bring better cpus in the future for everyone.
Well it could be more down to the architecture than anything else that sets the limits rather than Intel deliberately trying to cut down on users taking advantage of overclocking low budget CPUs to extreme variants or above, I doubt Intel takes overclocking capabilities into account when designing a new architecture (ofc clock frequency scaling is an important part but hey they can do it using higher multis so). We might just have been lucky with Core 2 - Core i7. What I'm saying is the FSB overclocking as we're used to might just have been a coincidence and that this time it won't happen as easily. Now you could even look like it from this perspective, what if Intel was kind enough to please enthusiasts to be able to overclock further with the K variants. You then might say well why not provide unlocked multis for all parts? Well overclocking community is just too small. But i7-2500K will be cheap at least, for majority of people the K variants won't make any sense.
Makes me remind of emulator community and the common view about "speed hacks", it was just a coincidence it works, they don't code the emulator in order to be able to support them. :p
Well, look at it from another point of view: At least now there will be cheap multi-unlocked CPUs, so BCLK won't be a concern until you try LN2 since 57x105 seems about the maximum obtainable frequency. Still plenty of room for easy OC on air and water. OC is never guaranteed and never will be. Intel's only concern is to provide a chip that is guaranteed to work at stock settings. The rest is a bonus you may or may not get. For examle, the i7-875K is very attractive currently, as it easily goes to 4 GHz with half-decent cooling regardless of the max BCLK your board can manage.
Let's put things into perspective: the i7 920 was released in November 2008 for $284. This new SB i7 2600K will be released roughly 2 years after the i7 920, costing around the same price point, but will it perform 2x-3x faster according to moore's law? NO
Ever since the Core2Duo architecture, all processors are incremental upgrades with diminishing returns. Frankly I'm disappointed at Intel but when going up against the laws of physics, you're always going to lose, especially when AMD has its head up its own ass. :(
What is your understanding of Moore's Law?Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
Moore's law doesn't talk about performance...but about transistor/mm2 (as far as I know).Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
moore's law says nothing about performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
the problem isnt the fundamentals. there is plenty of room for performance improvements but the industry if focused on cmos so much that other ideas are usually not worth investing in until every bit of conventional cmos transistor performance is milked out.Quote:
Ever since the Core2Duo architecture, all processors are incremental upgrades with diminishing returns. Frankly I'm disappointed at Intel but when going up against the laws of physics, you're always going to lose, especially when AMD has its head up its own ass. :(
frankly, if you blindly trust the laws of physics you have already lost.
As far as you know is correct, Moore's Law is not actually a law, it is just a silly observation. Gordon Moore plotted the transistor density (or costs) vs a time scale and the slope derived Moore's Law. Nothing fundamentally drives Moore's Law in a physics related concept, it is purely economical.Quote:
Originally Posted by prava
The economics of going smaller drives companies to go smaller, and his observation was it takes roughly 2 years for an iteration of doubling the transistor density. Moore never once wrote, said, or pulbished any statement that device performance will double every two years, just that the complexity (or number of transistors) will increase as a consequence of utilizing the transistor density to drive better devices.
People have forgotten that Fugger broke 5ghz on air using a 45nm i7, with 32nm he could hit the cap... actually that would be epic, "First man to reach the SandyBridge Cap on Air".Quote:
Originally Posted by rado992
No that's a challenge if ever I saw one.
Moore's Law <<<<<<<<< Murphy's Law, lolQuote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
the only way i read it was total transistors, not even per mm2.
i remember nvidia preaching about gpu advancements across time being faster than cpus, my response was gpus now consume about 2-10x the power than they did 10-15. while cpus have had a much slower advancement in tdp, since no consumer buys a 4P gaming rig, but can easily buy 4x 200W gpus.
just a silly observation? then i guess the same could be said for any law.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
and no you can not decouple physics from moore's law. physics is fundamental to understanding the natural world. MOS transistors would be a part of that set.
Moore's law has nothing to do with the physics problem, and Moore's law is not a scientific law. Physical laws will be the boundary and cause for the end of Moore's Law, it is the economics that drives mores law not physics. A scientific law withstands the test of time and is enduring and is testable. Moore's Law is not enduring, it will end. It has to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Any natural law, be it the law of conservation of momentum or energy (Thermodynamics) achieve that status through testable anti-hypothesis and observations and, beyond the emerical, are rooted in some physical relation ship between cause and effect. This is not true of Moore's Law.
LONG LONG before C2D there were "just" incremental performance upgrades, not doublings/triplings.Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
For the sake of argument, let's presently ignore moving from single to multiple cores, and look at the performance difference, for either camp, just in terms of IPC of the core itself. If you do that, you don't see doublings, etc. in IPC, EVER.
People forget that if you get 10-15% every time there is an arch change, those changes add up, and FAST.
1 x 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.15 = 1.749
Over 4 iterations, that's 75% faster IPC than the base you started out with, and it continues to grow. Then you toss in the ability to add more cores and up the frequency b/c of process shrinks, and you really have some huge jumps in performance.
People were spoiled with the IPC jump experienced with C2D just b/c P4 sucked so bad (can you saw WORSE IPC than P3?).
Moore's "law" is an observation, not a mathematical proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
There is no physics to it.
lol hahaha moores law...when will ppl realize that it is not of real consequence? its not a law its a marketing point.
interesting post...Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
wait a minute isn't BD using fma instructions?Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
FMAC, other thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by god_43
Actually it is FMA, but without software support it useless.. just as AVX.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
And as we see software hardly useses any of the new insturctions (SSSE3, SSE4.x) when not both cpus support it, we'll see the same for the first FMA implementation in BD. At least both sopport AVX so that will get some use.
More specifically, without compiler support, they are both useless.
I don't think FMA was planned to be in the first version of Intel's AVX, so I'm not entirely sure what the situation is. But this info is like third hand from back when I wanted to know about the Tock after the first i7's.Quote:
Originally Posted by god_43
If it's in Bulldozer, then I guess Intel decided to use it first time round, if not then maybe it's because AMD decided to match Intel for functionality.
FMA comes with haswell, according to intel it would increase coresize to much, so they wait for 22nm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
FMA support is already wide spread in processors and code compilers. C99 supports FMA through the fma standard math library function, nvidia gtx2XX and new gpu's support it, amd's 5XXX gpu's support it, the cell processor, fujistsu SPARC VI, itanium.... BD will support FMA4 and Haswell will support FMA3. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
also, windows 7 sp1 will support AVX as does linux kernal 2.6.30 :D
What is this "fma standard math library"? The C99 extension to math.h?
Too bad hardly anyone cares about C99 really, partly thanks to Microsoft. They do not support it at all, and have no plans to. Intel doesn't support C99 either, only the major features, same with GCC although their support is way better it isn't still 100 % compatible.
I hope Intel will implement FMA in Haswell in the right way, keeping a throughput of two instruction per cycle (FMA+FMA or FMA+MUL/ADD). One FMA has no advantage over separated MUL & ADD (except a bit better accuracy), but some serious disandvatages.
hah... all that moores law talk... :D
everybody sees something different in it :D
i always get a laugh out of presentations that claim moores law is dead, moores law has been surpassed or moores law cant continue because they did something... :D
depending on how you look at it, moores law has been dead for quite a while, as manufacturing and r&d costs have increased a lot, so you dont "just" get double the transistors every 18 months... if youd spend enough you could probably get 4 times the transistors every 18 months, but thats not the point...
another thing is that intel has been working on a 24months shrink cycle for the past years, and for amd you can add a few weeks on top of that...
anyhow... i think its silly taking this thing so seriously... i mean the original conclusion he made was that transistor density doubles "roughly" every 18 months... "roughly"... i doubt that he meant it to be a serious rule or guideline, and im surprised so many people see it as such and argue over semantics :D
I think you meant to say, "for amd you can add several months on top of that."Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Their 32nm looks like it will ship about ~18 months after Intel's, so they've been building quite a few months up each cycle.
Yes, a 4-operand form. Intel is supporting a 3-operand form starting with Haswell.Quote:
Originally Posted by god_43
well the cycles have slowed down overall... i dont think amd has fallen back even more... im not sure...Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
when amd went 45nm intel went 32nm...
by the time amd goes 32nm, intel will go 22nm... right?
so the cycles have slowed down cause fabs are getting more expensive, so you have to run them for longer to really get any ROI, 45nm lasted a long time and 32nm will last a while as well...
How do you know? Not trying to be antagonistic, just a question.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I think you mean that the sale and use of extreme editions is a blip on the balance sheet. It's more of a prestige thing than serious sales. Don't be too quick to dismiss "mainstream" overclocking as irrelevant.
And even if it is true that only an abolutely tiny amount of users overclock their systems, these are the guys that generally work in the field of IT or have some sort of connection to it. Meaning that they are more often than not the gateway to regular consumers. For example, I am convinced that the great overlockability of C2D was an important reason for it's huge success. And not only because enthousiasts were pushing C2D to their relations. I believe that everyone started overclocking his C2D at home because it was just so easy to get a 1Ghz incrase for free. Doing so on A64 was not that easy.
Intel is tired of seeing the higher binned CPU's gathering dust as everyone is buying low end and overclocking the snot out of it. This is especially worrying for Intel as the crowd that overclocks is generally the only group that would buy a high end CPU in the first place. So they have to force these K type CPU's onto them, better yet, make them get the more expensive socket with quad DDR3 channels at the end of 2011 to be able to change the bus speed and the multi's.
So we are stuck with a blunt tool called multi overclocking for "mainstream" SB (read: everyone in 2011, and probably over 90% of the market after 2011 as well). What is there to tweak other than Vcore and multi? It's like trying to make a painting using a pneumatic drill.
There seems to be no technical reason for this limitation to multi clocking either. If there was a technical reason to it why would they allow changing the bus speed on S2011 (I'm going by what Terrace215 said earlier in this thread btw)? SB on S2011 is the same architecture with quad channel DDR3 after all, right?
My point is Intel invented an artificial way to milk overclockers (which actually seems to contradict your statement that the overclocking market is tiny). They can do this if they want to, it's their company, but the real reason is that they limit the bus speed clocking just because mobo manufacturers will probably find a way to keep "mainstream" SB overclocking alive if the BCLK can be adjusted. Going the multi way gives Intel absolute control of what we can do. It's just wrong to destroy our hobby with pragmatic thinking like that. It dumbs down overclocking and quite frankly, takes the fun out of a place like XS. I'm directing this at everyone that thinks it's all fine and dandy what is happening now btw. Not at you JumpingJack. :)
Suddenly I don't feel so silly having just bought 1156. I'll believe it when I see it as far as sandy bridge goes, the numbers aren't all that spectacular as the core 2 upgrade was and it seems like fsb OC is dead. Not happy, as that's something I've stuck with Intel for, for the last 15 years. Sure it's gotten way better over the years [up from 20% to around 35% O.C], but if the K prices hold true they will be worth megabucks. In Aus the 875K was several hundred dollars more than the 860 for quite a long time. Unless Intel plans on selling K processors for a small amount extra, I doubt my next PC will be an Intel one.
From a marketing/business view it isn't such a bad idea for them to do that either. I doubt if even a fraction of total of chips sales accounts for the people who O.C. Think about the laptop, OEM and general PC markets. The average consumer doesn't O.C, so I don't see why we need to pay 2-3x extra for it. In the end I've upgraded my PC 2-3x more than the average consumer would, so no I don't agree with paying insane amounts for a K series chip.
While I think about it I'll see if I can list those upgrades..... and the overclocks ;P
Intel 386
Intel 486
Intel 586
AMD K6-2 400MHz --->500MHz = 20%inc
Intel Celeron 533MHz --->?733MHz = 28%inc
Intel Celeron 800MHz --->?1GHz = 20%inc
Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz --->2.4GHz = 25%inc
Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz --->3.6GHz = 17%inc
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz --->2.86GHz = 35%inc
Intel Pentium E5400 2.7GHz --->4.0GHz = 32.5%inc
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz --->3.4GHz = 29.5%inc
Intel Core i5-760 2.8GHz --->4.3GHz = 35%inc
Food for thought anyways.......
Just imagine if Ford or GM [Holden over here] made their cars so you could only get factory only upgrades. I doubt that'd go down well..........;P
nvm
I don't have enough experience to question your technical points but this is wrong. I don't know at what proportions you would view a segment as tiny but let's just say Intel like other companies in other industries value this minority population. Higher margins or profits that can be made catering to their desires by not only introducing price barriers to the mainstream consumer; but also artificially creating differences in products that makes their niche buyer feel as if their product is more valuable.Quote:
My point is Intel invented an artificial way to milk overclockers (which actually seems to contradict your statement that the overclocking market is tiny).
Intel is just catering to the upper income bracket of the overclocking community and offering [tongue in cheek] "appropriate" overclocking options to the lower income bracket.
you know I've been thinking, could the lack of fsb overclocking have anything to do with AMD's position (aside the fact that Intel has saturated the market of course)?
What I mean is that by doing this, they can potentially increase their own profit margins, while almost giving AMD a small gift (being the mid to low end overclocking market). It wouldn't really be much to intel's final profit lines, but that could potentially give AMD some more market share and revenue to play with - hence preventing them from going bankrupt. As long as AMD doesn't go bankrupt, Intel can basically do whatever they want, and so having a guaranteed tiny percentage of the market could help in the long run.
Depending on how you look at it, you could either think it's plausible or outer space far fetched; but I happen to think that even if that wasn't the initial idea, it may have gone into the thought process.
In the end, it probably will give AMD some more sales, but nothing game changing for them.
But what it will do is it will give more money to intel, even if they lose few sales, they will take more in higher margins.
So i really think it was just about some more money (nothing big for intel too, but a few execs are gonna have a lambo or a porsche more).
Most People nowadays look like they like being ripped off, just look at apple.
the # of people who pay more * the price difference for that unlocked chip > the #of people who switched sides * the average price of the cpu bought
if that statement comes out true, intel makes money, if its false, then they might not have lost anything noticeable.
The enthusiast community is a small percentage of the overall market, and the overclocking market only a part of that.
Most people don't care about bclk overclocking - they get the performance they pay for - you can't complain that you don't get more than you pay for.
If you feel there is better value elsewhere vote with your cash and companies will be forced to adjust prices to market levels. But as I said the overclocking market has little effect on prices - it's only the positive word of mouth and reccomendations of the enthusiast to friends and family (the general consumer) that Intel doesn't want to lose.
It's not even as though overclockers are going to be losing out though, as even if you have to spend extra for an unlocked cpu you'll save the difference in the cost of the motherboard.
It's the motherboard makers that will be losing out - how can they justify £300 motherboards when you can overclock to similar levels with a £80 one?
Not quite , for high frecuencys a very good VRM will still be needed. I mean you will no reach 4.7ghz with 4-5 phases. May with 22nm process.
Still the future is with loses for MB manufacurers, i mean 22nm-14nm we will not anymore powerful VRM's so the motheboards will be cheaper.
Not really, with MSI boards you dont need more then 4, and even with other boards you probably dont need more then 6 or 8 a fraction of what we have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
Today phases are just for the bling...
So? if the MBs will be cheaper to produce than prices will drop, but what is important are the margins. If the margin is good, than they will not care what price they will sell, as long as it makes them money.Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
Yep, me neither.Quote:
Originally Posted by d_s_willoughby
??????????? How the hell are you doing the match????Quote:
Originally Posted by d_s_willoughby
400mhz to 500mhz is NOT a 20% increase, but a 25% one. Again, 2.7ghz to 4ghz is nearly a 50% increase...
For Evergreen series, only HD5800 and HD5900 series (RV870-based) support FMA.Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
What disadvantages?Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
i stand corrected, thank you :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
as for the whole overclocking thing, i look at it this way: intel has brought it's "extreme edition" cpu's to the mainstream market with the "k" series, and cut the price in half. yes, the rest of the line will be very restricted in terms of frequency changes, but unlocked and binned processors are now half the price they used to be (from the blue team, i know amd practically gives unlocked cpu's away). considering that i have bought EE processors from intel in the past, i'm happy that i might not have to pay so much to get what i'm looking for.
They only cost 1/4 of a EE. ;)
even better ! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Maybe psychologically he only accepts his overclock as 100% instead of the stock speed. Or his maths could just be that bad...Quote:
Originally Posted by prava
thats only 2.5x as much as the current entry level chips you can push to the max, yay! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Two operations A=B*C & E=F+H can be started on SB in the same cycle while on BD it can be started every other cycle (50% slower). It seems theres only one 256-bit execution port in BD according to techreport article.Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
That's as a percentage varied from the base clock, for people who like it the other way as follows.
Net increase from the base clock....
AMD K6-2 400MHz --->500MHz = 25%inc
Intel Celeron 533MHz --->?733MHz = 37.5%inc
Intel Celeron 800MHz --->?1GHz = 25%inc
Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz --->2.4GHz = 25%inc
Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz --->3.6GHz = 20%inc
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz --->2.86GHz = 53%inc
Intel Pentium E5400 2.7GHz --->4.0GHz = 48%inc
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz --->3.4GHz = 41%inc
Intel Core i5-760 2.8GHz --->4.3GHz = 53.5%inc
I don't use that method, but I swear this has come up before..... it's the whole % argument. More than one way of doing it, just depends on what the percentage is based on. Moving right along..... ;P
There is simply not another way of doing the math. If you talk about increases you obviously wanna know how much the initial quantity has grown. On the other hand, if you are talking about decreases you wanna know how much the initial quantity has decreased. Such a simple thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by d_s_willoughby
Imagine you go to a supermarket and you read the following: "Today Heinz Ketchup comes with 50% rebate" and "Tomorrow Heinz Ketchup comes with 50% more quantity". The only way to understand those is, for the first, that you will pay 50% of the original price and, on the second, that you will get 150% the original quantity, and thats it.
Basically, what has happened is that intel has killed the hidden value in overclocking. I think if you pay more for an unlocked cpu, you won't be getting any additional value (caveat: FOR AVERAGE PEOPLE, obviously for people who run benchmarks for WR this need not apply). Intel has fixed the little bug where you could cheat them out of money by buying something slower and OC'ing it; now if you want performance you pay the appropriate price.
Some incredible performance in WoW...I wonder if that means a huge bump in games like Everquest II and Lineage II...the former of which is in need of dire frame rate help on the CPU side.
i5 2400 outperformed Phenom II 1090T in majority of benchmarks, despite lacking turbo. The difference should be bigger with the final i5 2400 because its going to support turbo mode. Not to mention that i5 2400 consume significantly less power at full load. And let us not forget than i5 2400 cost same as i5 650
So what is AMD response to this ? Is bulldozer coming out on Q1 2011 ?
Well, if I understood the story on Anand's, non-K cpus will have 2 multis above turbo, and several MHZ of "FSB" to play with. So you will still be able to get ~4 GHz from 3.1 GHz CPU. Not bad for 24/7 OC for sure..Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
..unless K CPUs work at 4.5 on air :mad:
4ghz only sounds good with the ipc boost... as current chips reach above 4g easily, some are close to 5g on air...Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
Yep, if you OC it will be hardly justified to upgrade from current i-3/5/7 generation without getting 'K' or 8-threaded models.
For Core 2 upgraders, however.. :)
Not sure if this was already posted:
http://a.imageshack.us/img832/8061/1499u.th.jpg
Where did that 2 multis came from?Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
That would be 3.78Ghz for a core i5 2400 ?
Turbo clock of 3.4ghz so 2x multi more equals 36x plus a 5mhz increase on the bus speed.
And a whooping 4.095Ghz for a 2500 non K model ?
If thats true, it seems like a serious pushback of oc wall.These things will probably clock near 5ghz on good air.
Anand said it..Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anandtech
There is not any mention of "2x" multis more.Only "Few" , it can mean 2x or 9x.But giving us more than 2-3x would not make sense for them.We will see.
Honestly if the 2500k is priced around $200-250 as expected, I don't think it's that big of a deal if Intel remedies the memory issue. Especially once you consider that motherboard prices *should* drop quite a lot considering that these chips are low power, so they don't need an uber special VRM, and fsb overclocking is no longer an option, so the NB much be quite simplified (meaning they'll be cheaper to produce and also run cooler, so no need for massive heatpipes beyond the looks).
Unless if you are a major contributor to one of the folding teams here, you really don't need above 4 threads. And besides HT shown to hurt single threaded performance anyways, so I would rather have 2500k for performance reasons over the 2600k in the first place.
Well, anand states that 2500(k) will cost around 200$.
But its not like its going to price 2500 200$ and 2500K 209$ ;-).
And high intel mobo costs are associated with Intel too :).
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2824
Intel gets 7$ per lga socket ,and 43$-73$ per chipset.
Thats a nehalem era.
With sandybridge it looks like differentation will be even more between Hxx / Pxx and future 2011 socket chipset.Basically you need to buy Pxx chipset because of the memory lock on the Hxx chipsets from now on.
So el cheapo sandybridge motherboards with any decent oc capabilities are probably not gonna happen.
I wonder if i7-2930 is going to replace i7-930 in its price point. Now if only LGA2011 MB will have the same price range as LGA 1366 MB then that would be a good cpu line replacement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel44
I don't know if it has been posted already,but Anand updated his preview article(Conclusion) with a new info on integrated GPU:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anand
Well thanks a lot Anand for getting everyone all worked up. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Just don't come back in a few days and tell everyone turbo was on too...:mad:
So probably Bobcat will go toe-to-toe with mobile SB in GPU department, but my impression is that the AMD GPU will go on top overall, especially in terms of image quality/drivers/ etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
i2600 is the only SB "Mainstream" cpu with 4 + 4 8 threads :/
I was thinking 12EU from the start too, that performance with 6 EU seemed too good to be true
Still, a healthy boost compared to the previous gen and great performance for a integrated GPU, especially from intel
Which is a nice upgrade for someone like me that has an AM2 cpu, but I don't think it's worth the $500+ price tag. I'll most likely get the 2500k unless if AMD releases some actual bulldozer benchmarks showing it's close in ipc but clocks much higherQuote:
Originally Posted by geo
i7 2990 - 8c/16T 3.46ghz (3.8ghz turbo)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel44
thats insane :shocked:
Huh, i've suspected all along, yes Intel made relatively good progress on integrated graphic front the last few years (with some acquisition of companies and personals), but the results are just other worldly for their standard, if it's really a 6 EU part. Now it seems more credible, still a pretty good improvement over the current gen, but not such a quantum leap as speculated before. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
LOL, gotta scrub & massage the hand that feed you, cause that's where company money comes all along, right ? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
So I guess IGP may be around Ontario performance after all
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3885/s...raphics-update
Quote:
this performance preview, ~5 months before launch, wasn't officially sanctioned or supported by Intel.
I told you all that even anandtech cant break NDA. My partial NDA will expire soon most likely then you all can get some insight to the architecture...
wtg anand! hope you get an extra bonus from intel for this pr stunt... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
even if it would have been a 6eu part it wouldnt have made a real difference... for laptops but nothing else...
now that it turns out that this is more or less as good as it gets (some turbo boosts but thatll suck for laptops) i dont see sb killing the laptop discrete gpu market...
im waiting for the next update about turbo actually being enabled for sb in his benchmarks ^^
this screen is only speculation from Czech pcweb.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
Why ?Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
Intel has 32nm Westmere with 6 cores and 3.33GHz w/o turbo now .
In 1 years time, the 32nm process would be 2 years old, yields at a maximum, so is the performance and all the costs amortized.
If AMD brings a Bulldozer in the field, Intel will bring a battleship with 8 16" hyperthreaded main guns. :yepp:
That made me :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
You can also say if AMD brings in a Bulldozer, Intel will have a sandy bridge that the bulldozer cant cross... get it :D :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu