So, sandy bridge is a new socket correct? And these ones in the OP are the low end ones? So are there high end ones with Hex/Octa cores coming out for the same socket next year that will take over the high end from 1366?
Printable View
So, sandy bridge is a new socket correct? And these ones in the OP are the low end ones? So are there high end ones with Hex/Octa cores coming out for the same socket next year that will take over the high end from 1366?
look at the slides, it contains you answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Mainstream has open mem multi up to ddr3 2133.
Enthusiast platform up to 2666.
i cant keep up with all the platforms and numbers and lingoQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
i figured they would provide different settings for the ram and you just choose what yours is, but that does not really mean you can OC, i can get 1600mhz stuff and set it to 2133 maybe, but could i ever go past that?
From the slides it looks like b-clock overclocking is out, or at least limited. But it looks like even normal chips might have a little more (but limited) multiplier freedom then before to make up for it.
It's not really ideal for budget overclockers, but I can understand why Intel would do it that way from a business perspective.
Who buys chips with integrated graphics for OC ? Having the graphics on die ( more integrated that everything else on the market ) means some limitations to the OC capability since you're affecting directly the graphics chip. Obviously, as long as you know what you are doing or the GPU is disabled you should still be able to OC.
The performance version with 6 and 8 core without graphics should not be any different in OC than current Nehalems.
Someone on a budget. Half the point of overclocking is so you can get more bang for your buck. And the other half is because it's fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
From the looks of it, overclocking of mainstream Intel chips will be canned, unless you pay more. Greedy Intel!
Greater share for AMD then!
The first part may be true, but if true, it could lead to opposite conclusion than yours, too. It can also mean Intel feels confident and superior to AMD in next round. Less competition means less CPU for more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by pokipoki
yeah, it is possible intel feels their brand name is more superior than simple benchmarking and overclocking, then all they want is to get the most money per buyer, knowing that a percentage of their market share will not leave them.
so, still i dont know, what coming as highend SB, LGA1356 or LGA2011 (last time this packet was only for servers)
For the lower price segment/bracket, AMD is the only choice left available for overclocking. Unless AMD follows Intel and break overclocking?
lol, did they even fix the unlockable cores? i know certain boards let you do it still, but is that just older chips? or can we expect the same unlocking with new ones. those were the sickest overclocks ever. 250% performance increase on air for under 200$Quote:
Originally Posted by pokipoki
And by this, your overclocking your memory. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
way to dodge the questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Sry but what dodge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Of you buy ram that is specificed for 1600mhz and your running it with 1800mhz your ocing it. It doesn't matter if its due to increasing the base frquency or the multiplier... and for the other question, sure when its possible to raise the bclck (even only a few mhz) you can get past the 2133mhz.
thanks,Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
it seems that it will be quite limiting if 2133 is the cap, and you can only get a few mhz above that due to bclock sucking. maybe this will just mean better timings in ram then, still plenty of perf to be gained by dropping those
Yes if you want to go higher you need to go for the enthusiast plattform. But personally i don't see a point going any faster then 1600mhz. I'll take 1600mhz with Cl7 anytime over 2000mhz+ with CL9 or higher.... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
it'll be interesting to see if anyone could/would whip up a bios that could bypass the bclk limit. the limit is purely artificial. i could see it making sense when comparing bloomfield v. lynnfield so i think the limit could be very restrictive.
Well according to the slides, there is no limit, but the whole system will get instable. Just look how fast S1336 systems get instable when you increase pcie frequency above a certain point. sata controlelr crapping out comes to mind and other stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
It might be possible that the clock generator it self in cougar point is capable of much more then 2-5%, but if everything else craps out there isn't much point to it.
Well supposely 1355, but from what i've been hearing you cant overclock these all that high as their limited due to the dmi..:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
1355 cpus do not have dmi IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny87au
You sure go read the article, Either way Intel is trying to Limit overclocking, bunch of tools :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
This is a new architecture, and we should be careful to speculate too much based on current architecture.
As I've written in another tread, it was many similar speculations before the release Nehalem too . Some where speculating on problems with OCing RAM on Nehalem, and issues with using 2v+ RAM on new system. All was a part of new and better 3-channel architecture, but those who didn't understand it at that time were making negative scores on it.
its not a bios limit, so how could a bios fix it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
unless its possible to flash new firmware onto the PCH via a bios update and the dmi protocoll really IS the limitation AND can be updated... i wouldnt hold my breath... even if that would work, youd get how high? 120mhz? 130mhz maybe? thats a 30% overclock then, not bad, but compare that to 1156 and 1366 bclock overclocking...
dont compare it to 1366, compare it to 1156... whats the max pciE clock youve seen on 1156? 1366 actually did "ok" pciE clock wise...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
anyways, i actually havent heard anybody mention 1356 or 2011, all i heard was that sb bclock ocing is broken as its linked to dmi, and the current plan of action is to fix that on the enthusiast platform that comes out later, a while later, and thats gonna be quad channel and 8+ cores... those are tidbits from several sources and most of it overlapped... it was me who assumed that platform is 2011, but 1356 def isnt quad channel and unlikely to have 8+ cores, so...
i havent actually heard anybody mention 1356 in a long time... maybe its cause its coming out later, but why would it come out after socket 2011? and why would intel focus on 2011 for highend and not 1356? i have no idea...
Both, socket R and socket B2 are scheduled for H2 2011. And how can DMI be broken it works as intended. Overclocking is running thing out of specification. It can work but there is no obligation from intel that it should work outside there spesifications. You can call it broken if it doesn't even wirk at there own specifications.
And again I still doubt we see S2011 for consumers, but at least we'll see some news on next IDF.