Core i7 = Ripoff.
Printable View
Core i7 = Ripoff.
so was yorkfield when its was released. so was kentsfield/conroe/A64 etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
i bet you'll say the exact same thing about westmere. :rofl:
So true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Let's think about for a minute, when I bought my E6600 back in August 2006 it was the same thing as it is today, people complaining about the CPU, memory and motherboard prices and so on.
The E6600 that I bought has a good overclocking potential fact was that I achieved a maximum of 3.9Ghz 1.8 Vcore however far from the system being stable, at 3.4Ghz 1.50 Vcore was rock solid stable and still as of today nothing changed.
Francois said something very important about the High-K being the reason behind Penryn overclocking potential being so good as Nehalem has the same thing on it, most of users here in XS are aware of it but could be a good reading High-K
Now thinking about my case where I could get a I7 920 and with a good motherboard and cooling I could achieve an overclocking potential of 4.0Ghz stable. This is just amazing + 6 cores more than my old E6600.
I7 920 at 4.0Ghz is more or less a Q9450 at 4.7Ghz.
On a sidenote: I'm still waiting for the retail processors as the overclocking potential needs to be confirmed.
The 920 is cheaper than the lowest C2Q when it was released. 6GB of DDR3 is cheaper than 6GB of DDR2 when that C2Q was released. And the MoBo's are about the same if not cheaper.....
I just dont see the complaints. The prices are decent IMO.
i was referencing the well written tech report article.... http://techreport.com/articles.x/15818
granted Intel did a better job than AMD, but in some aspects it looks very familiar? (on-board memory controller, QPI)
and people need to chill out.. im not trying to start an argument, i was just pointing it out.
Uh, no. Even if Agena was running at the same speed as Kentsfield, it would still under-perform using Crossfire/SLI.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Flawed comparison, if you are going to compare mobo prices at least use ones with a similar feature set, not a top end mobo against a budget mobo. A high end 790FX mobo costs over $200 and good X48 mobos are $250+, and neither offer the flexibility of combined CF/SLI support, if you talk high end SLI mobos you're looking at $300+ anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
Also, comparing a Q6600/9950BE to an i920 is silly, as they are in totally different price brackets and performance classes. The i920 performs as well or better than the previous flagship QX9770 in most MT apps and yet you find it fit to compare it to low end quads?
Geez, why not just say people shouldn't get an E8500 because we have $50 X2s and Celerons?
He he - good one! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
the graph under the 4870x2 crossfire shows scaling with gtx260 in sliQuote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
even worse then 4870/4870x2 scaling with nehalem
strange only 3-way sli is much faster
well, AMD did copy the design of the 80386SX ... humm hummmm :yepp: :rofl: :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
"In 1988, Intel introduced the i386SX, a version of the 386, designed to enable low-cost systems software-compatible with the 386.
Cost was reduced by narrowing the external data bus to 16 bits from the internal 32, which in some designs can halve the number of RAM chips, and eliminating economically unusable pins such as those address lines required to support over 16 MB of RAM (too expensive for the low-cost systems this processor targeted).
Performance suffered both due to the narrower external databus, and the typical lack of cache memory in i386sx systems.
The original i386 was subsequently renamed i386DX to avoid confusion, though this would rather cause confusion later when the DX in the name i486DX instead indicated floating-point capability. The i387SX was a compatible i387 part (i.e. with a 16-bit databus) available as an optional math-coprocessor. The 386SX was packaged in a surface-mount QFP, and rarely offered in a socket to allow for an upgrade.
A similar cost reduction was done for the 8088 CPU used in the original PC.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386SX
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rch.png/800px-
[QUOTE=Bellisimo;3405584]
You shouldn't cut your self so short.Quote:
Great minds think alike? ;)
Don't worry about it, it is not worth derailing the thread.
Jack
It is an interesting argument to have though -- so long as it is civil and not personal. People get too emotionally attached to a chunk of silicon.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
AMD did a phenomenal job searching for ways to compete with Intel, they needed two things to become really competitive -- a product that stood out against Intel's (performance) and cost structures to make profits to reinvest.
AMD was very smart, going for server first -- ultimately the evolution to K8 was geared straight for server. They did it by not only opening up the BW bottlneck, but because the memory controller was on-die, they could down scale cache without suffering performance loss -- smaller die on a node - 1 behind Intel -- great for costs.
Moving the memory controller on die solved many problems for AMD, it gave them an enormous performance boost while maintaining a competitive die size -- consequently, they could go toe to toe with Intel in server and win -- and they did, big ... gaining massive credibility and profitability over the 2-3 years they held that lead.
For AMD, moving to an on die memory controller was not only innovative for the x86 server, but necessary to become recognized as a major competitor and gain credibility in the commercial sector.
AMD did not invent the on die memory controller concept -- nor did they invent a high speed serial point to point interconnect -- nor did they implement a novel NUMA type architecture... what they did do was take these concepts, constructed a brilliant design, and wiped up.
My opinion anyway.
A little unfair comparison, in that you must know thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I only know this, because it was the first computer i had. ;) Hard to say copying is the same thing as being licensed to clone...Quote:
In 1991, AMD released its 386 processor. Like its predecessors, this model was identical to the Intel versions. AMD was licensed to produce clones of Intel products, right down to the microcode (the CPU’s firmware). This processor had two notable features. First, it was faster than the Intel model—40 MHz compared to a top speed of 33 MHz at Intel—and it was the first to sport the Windows Compatible logo on the package.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ry,2008-3.html
:) License to clone means they were allowed to copy ... basically it was even more than that, Intel simply handed AMD the blue prints.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
Frankly, while AMD had good arguments legally I will not argue against it, the best thing that happened to them was having the ability to simply copy taken away post 486 ... without that AMD become an innovator instead of a copy machine.
Retail Core i7-920 + MSI Eclipse
(Source: Coolaler)Quote:
more pics & screens @ coolaler.com
Nice! And a sweet 200Mhz BCLK!
@ Francois..
what do you tell us?!
on this screen Coolaler use a higher memory multiplier than possible (i thought they were locked @ 1:3 (DDR3-800) @ 1:4 (DDR3-1066)?)
http://www.abload.de/img/2073q4.gif
wanna bet its an ES?
or probably some bios tricks by msi
You are really in a bad mood aint you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
@ Bellisimo
920/940 ES have locked memory multipliers (only 1:3 & 1:4)!
And i donīt think that MSI can do much on locked multipliers ;)
Now thats what i like to sEE!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chri$ch
http://www.coolaler.com.tw/coolalerc..._I7_Q920/6.gif
Looks like it gets hot, and this is only at stock speed, at 4.0ghz looks like we re gonna need some heavy cooling. Do you think 24/7 air is feasible?
Although i noticed his voltage is at 1.5ish.. on cpuz... so maybe he forgot to turn down the volts in bios, and quickly just turned down the qpi back to 133mhz.. ? :P
look @ the core voltage... 1.58v and this on air ;)
Look at the core voltage though. Doesn't matter if it's on stock clocks or not if the voltage is that high.
wow 21k writes on memory.
P.S.francois said the retail 920 -940 got unlocked memory multipler