Intel Core i7: Dual-Channel vs. Triple-Channel Memory Mode

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsideHW

Conclusion

After all these tests you need to ask yourself: What the heck is that triple channel mode useful for anyway, when it is obvious that is doesn’t provide performance boost that is expected? Maybe in the future and with some new versions of memory controllers, triple channel mode will provide better performances so transition to this platform will make more sense. Until that moment triple channel mode will be just another nice sticker on LGA 1366 motherboards and memory packages. Of course memory manufacturers already have triple channel DDR3 kits that are intended to be used on Intel Core i7 platform. Since these are triple channel kits they have three DDR3 modules with total capacity of 3GB or 6GB. Since prices for DDR3 memory are still pretty high it is obvious who will profit the most from this situation where (uninformed) users will go for triple channel kits with intention to use up potentials of their new platform.

---

http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/Memo...mory-Mode.html

who cares about i7 swindle. release the i5 already

Quote:

---

DDR3-1066 (CL 8-8-8-20)

---

I'm truly surprised they managed to find such positively ancient DDR3 modules.

Whether it's faster or not I7 uses it and that is all that it comes down to. Such a ridiculous article, I don't know why websites even bother publishing this kind of thing.

If we can run more memory with minimal performance hit, that is good enough for me. Triple channel will always have slightly more latency because round-trip turnaround for 3 channels is always going to be longer than for 2.

What Intel have done is made the difference minimal at best and optimized the system for it. I commend them for that.

Old news. We covered this in a review months ago.

That's a lame-ass review.
Insert seal of approval here :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TweakTown

We have seen today that dual channel memory on the Core i7 is more than enough to keep it fed with bandwidth, especially since the CPU and memory are communicating with each other directly. There is very little lost bandwidth and it makes better use of all of the dual channel memory than the triple channel memory. However, with Intel’s plans to increase speeds and allow heavier memory usage, especially with IGP based systems, the extra bandwidth will end up being welcomed.

Our moral to this story is if you’re planning on a Core i7 system, don’t just go out and buy triple channel memory straight away. If your budget allows for it, then by all means more memory will help, especially in Vista. However, with today’s results you can see that dual channel memory is more than capable of keeping up with the Core i7.

---

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/16..._it/index.html

Nobody seems to have done some extensive testing ( 20+ benchmarks from various software categories ).
I'm not talking about having a different outcome, but it would be nice to see more tests.
And no! Don't look at me! I already have lots of things to do :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Nobody seems to have done some extensive testing ( 20+ benchmarks from various software categories ).
I'm not talking about having a different outcome, but it would be nice to see more tests.
And no! Don't look at me! I already have lots of things to do :p:

---

Says the man who has time to suggest such a test :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeyakame

Says the man who has time to suggest such a test :rofl:

---

The man in question has done such things a lot of times already.
And is writing 30 page mobo reviews including 20+ benchmarks each :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

The man in question has done such things a lot of times already.
And is writing 30 page mobo reviews including 20+ benchmarks each :p:

---

*cracks the whip* reviews don't write themselves :D

I think it'd be hard to show the kind of results that would be of interest to the general i7 owning market.

I believe Intel added triple channel IMC for server market uses, I doubt there will be much to show in single socket processors as the gains will probably only be visible in 2+ socket configs, where memory bandwidth can be better utilized for heavy computational tasks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stupid reviewer

What the heck is that triple channel mode useful for anyway, when it is obvious that is doesn’t provide performance boost that is expected? Maybe in the future and with some new versions of memory controllers, triple channel mode will provide better performances so transition to this platform will make more sense. Until that moment triple channel mode will be just another nice sticker on LGA 1366 motherboards and memory packages.

---

I wonder what this guy was expecting :lol:

DDR3's gotten cheap nowadays, 6GB DDR3-1600 CL8 for 125 EUR and even highend performance kits like 6GB DDR3-2000 CL9 for just under 250 EUR. That's more important for me than tripple channel not providing any realworld benefit. I mean it wasn't that long ago 6GB DDR3-16000 kits were like 250 - 300 EUR. If we look back DDR3's price has dropped way faster than DDR2 did. It was the DDR3 prices that's put me off upgrading to an i7 setup knowing DDR3 prices would drop a lot in matter of a half year already, now it starts making more sense switching.

Hope i5 will make demand for DDR3 grow further so prices can continue drop even more. :p:

Triple channel is simply offers more bandwidth for what a vast majority of apps will use/need.

A couple other conclusions on the matter:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3448&p=5

http://xtreview.com/review232.htm

Ugh, if someone doesnt want to waste money on triple channel he/she could just get some 3x DDR1066 kit, it's not like you'll pay a whole lot more for that.

My kit was only 200 Euro's (actually 300, but 100 Euro discount).

No one is forcing you to go a) with a triple channel kit or b) to get a high-end triple channel kit like those DDR2K 7-8-7 kits. AFAIK DDR1066 vs DDR1600 didnt do much in games either, but wtf do I care, those black heatspreaders looked cool for my mob... O wait:rolleyes::ROTF:

It may become more usefull when 6 or 8 core CPU's are released.

lol.. I got more than twice the speed he got on everest with 12gbs @ 1700 cr1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

I may become more usefull when 6 or 8 core CPU's are released.

---

No not even then, desktops apps arn't mem bandwidth limited, period.

And apps that are HPC, Database apps already gain from every MB/s more bandwidth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geo

who cares about i7 swindle. release the i5 already

---

Why? Isnt it slower than i7, so it will be like their current c2d offering with ddr3 yay? Doesnt seem like much of an upgrade surprised intel would even release it with chip sales as they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

DDR3's gotten cheap nowadays, 6GB DDR3-1600 CL8 for 125 EUR and even highend performance kits like 6GB DDR3-2000 CL9 for just under 250 EUR. That's more important for me than tripple channel not providing any realworld benefit. I mean it wasn't that long ago 6GB DDR3-16000 kits were like 250 - 300 EUR. If we look back DDR3's price has dropped way faster than DDR2 did. It was the DDR3 prices that's put me off upgrading to an i7 setup knowing DDR3 prices would drop a lot in matter of a half year already, now it starts making more sense switching.

Hope i5 will make demand for DDR3 grow further so prices can continue drop even more. :p:

---

Agreed.

Why go with dual-channel, when for very little more you can go triple?

Also, why spend the time picking through the masses of dual-channel DDR3 chips to find ones that use low volts? :shrug:

6GB of OCZ is not $63 after rebate at newegg. I think prices like that pretty much makes this debate moot.

Hell I spent over $200 for my 6gb but money wasn't the issue, it was simply a matter of using what I paid for with triple channel. I mean really how many folks are going to fork over the money for i7 and not bite the bullet for a 3x kit especially with as cheap as memory is getting now.

I think the debated issue is triple channel simply doesn't offer much if any tangible gains over dual channel. More or less it seems allot of folks seem to think performance will be degraded if you don't run triple channel and thats simply not the case i7.

You will basically get the same level of performance whether you run i7 dual or triple channel.

Even with i5 and dual channel config memory bandwidth will not be the biggest factor for performance differences to i7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

It may become more usefull when 6 or 8 core CPU's are released.

---

Desktop applications are not memory BW hungry, any advantage of memory BW in benchmarks only show up on the mem BW tests for the synthetics (Everest, Sandra, Winrar's internal bench utility).

The vast majority of workloads on single user applications for desktop computing are invariant to memory BW past a certain point. Memory BW is like a water pipe, a certain diameter of pipe will flow x gallons/min at a given pressure. If demand never exceeds that flow rate then there will be no disruption in supply.

C2D still relies on on off-die memory controller shuttling data through a low BW FSB, yet has great performance -- because caching efficiency and workload demands make that poor FSB performance irrelevant in the computational equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

Why? Isnt it slower than i7, so it will be like their current c2d offering with ddr3 yay? Doesnt seem like much of an upgrade surprised intel would even release it with chip sales as they are.

---

From my point of view i5 will be the "mainstream" simplified & cooler DC IMC version of the i7. The performance difference regarding the IMC imho will be marginal. My main worry is the Ibex Peak (P55) platform limitation on the PCI-E lanes (single card @ x16 but SLI or CF will have to do with only x8 per card). It'll be damn nice to have a simplified motherboard coz of the elimination of the NB & SB and going for the PCH solution. The cpu should also be a lil' cooler with only two mem channels to take care of.

ah yes, buy the cheapest hardware available, run a suite of benchmarks unrelated to the disputed topic and call yourself a review site.
...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

Why? Isnt it slower than i7, so it will be like their current c2d offering with ddr3 yay? Doesnt seem like much of an upgrade surprised intel would even release it with chip sales as they are.

---

I can't find them at the moment, but there were some benches showing it was about the same clock for clock if not a tiny bit faster. These weren't in the benches, but the platform also has less latency between the CPU and GPU as well as a very nice power usage decrease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blauhung

I can't find them at the moment, but there were some benches showing it was about the same clock for clock if not a tiny bit faster. These weren't in the benches, but the platform also has less latency between the CPU and GPU as well as a very nice power usage decrease.

---

Yeah, but what about long(er)-term support? :(
AFAIK, LGA1160 won't get a 32nm 4- or 6-core upgrade, just a 2-core
plus gpu. Has that plan changed since?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

Yeah, but what about long(er)-term support? :(
AFAIK, LGA1160 won't get a 32nm 4- or 6-core upgrade, just a 2-core
plus gpu. Has that plan changed since?

---

I'm unsure, but I think there is something in the plan that just probably hasn't been announced as there isn't really much demand for the middle ground right now. Most of the money in the consumer space right now is in cheep low power stuff, so we aren't really pushing developement there. If Intel sees good sales on i5 desktops and the performance desktop segment continues to be valuable, then there will be a refresh down the line. If all the interest stays in Atom stuff and larger notebooks, multi-core CPU's may just stay in the server and higher end desktop market. Remember that the platforms that we are currently looking at are probably all going to change somewhat drastically later on in 2010

Also, from Intel's standpoint, there's a reason to keep the HEDT platform upgradeable as that is the market that will be swaping out CPU's and other hardware as better stuff comes available, but the performance and lower desktop market is normally sold through OEM channels and the platform is much more likely to be updated as newer stuff comes out.

6 memory slots are better than 4 memory slots.

Triple channel wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blauhung

I'm unsure, but I think there is something in the plan that just probably hasn't been announced as there isn't really much demand for the middle ground right now.

---

Ok, then hope isn't dead yet.
I think there's still higher demand for the middle ground than the high-end,
and i5 would show much higher numbers than i7 if it was already available.
E.g. I'm planning an upgrade this fall, and it will probably be i5, i7 is just too
expensive to justify for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geo

who cares about i7 swindle. release the i5 already

---

regardless of what reasons you have to not like i7, what makes you think i5 will be different? i5 will be the same, cut down, and cheaper...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

I'm truly surprised they managed to find such positively ancient DDR3 modules.

---

yeah, i was thinking... has there ever been slower 1066 actually?
i cant remember seeing 999... the slowest i remember was 1333 999 and thats probably even faster than 1066 888, LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

Old news. We covered this in a review months ago.

---

yeah! the xcpu article was way better! still one of the best if not the best enthusiast pov i7 review ive seen :toast:

id love to see some more i7 in depth testing tho, max cas8 vs max cas7 vs max cas6 with the new elpida ddr3 and a few more benchmarks comparing sc dc and tc. maybe boblemagnifique will pull this off, he did a really great article like that for p35/x38/x48

The big reason that I won't go with i5 is because of the cut-down PCI-E lanes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

yeah! the xcpu article was way better! still one of the best if not the best enthusiast pov i7 review ive seen :toast:

id love to see some more i7 in depth testing tho, max cas8 vs max cas7 vs max cas6 with the new elpida ddr3 and a few more benchmarks comparing sc dc and tc. maybe boblemagnifique will pull this off, he did a really great article like that for p35/x38/x48

---

Xcpu's could probably pull this off as well... maybe you could send us a bloodrage to test with? :shocked: :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

regardless of what reasons you have to not like i7, what makes you think i5 will be different? i5 will be the same, cut down, and cheaper...



yeah, i was thinking... has there ever been slower 1066 actually?
i cant remember seeing 999... the slowest i remember was 1333 999 and thats probably even faster than 1066 888, LOL

yeah! the xcpu article was way better! still one of the best if not the best enthusiast pov i7 review ive seen :toast:

id love to see some more i7 in depth testing tho, max cas8 vs max cas7 vs max cas6 with the new elpida ddr3 and a few more benchmarks comparing sc dc and tc. maybe boblemagnifique will pull this off, he did a really great article like that for p35/x38/x48

---

So much to cover. ;)

I've been up to my eyeballs in SSDs data. I was going to publish an article on the ICH10R, but the results just weren't worth the space. In a nutshell ICH10R bottlenecks at 600-625MB/s on RAID 0. 3rd party RAID controllers, surprisingly, are not yet validated for SSDs (some will work, but no manuf. provides a guarantee).


I've had a gem of a dual-socket 1366 board in house for a week (don't get me started).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

I've had a gem of a dual-socket 1366 board in house for a week (don't get me started).

---

You'd better lock it and the two chips that go with it in a safe... else Movieman might rob you tonight.... :p:

Have you tried running 8 VM's on it? How many PCI-E slots? :slobber:

I believe this is mainly about marketing. The third channel allows the user to install 50 % more memory without getting the drop in clock frequency associated with the use of two DIMMs per channel. While this drop should be of little parctical significance, I still welcome Core i7's flexibility.

we know already the differences from 2-3 imc channels, why don't they investigate more what would happen if you for example use 2 imc but run both with 2 dimms each, that would be interesting to see what the performance hit is against the performance "increase" going from 2 imc to 3 imc

triple channel is cool cos you can cheaply install 12gb, whereas for all other desktop platforms 8gb is the max affordable amount.
eg get 12gb for US $160 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148246
that's great value if you have a use for it.

Even if it doesn't speed things up much your at 6GB versus 4GB on triple channel :) Or 3 versus 2, 12 versus 8, etc. I thought about it myself and think its more there for headroom on future processors. And yes some applications make use of all the memory they can handle (someone mentioned this earlier) yet still don't make much of a difference dual versus triple. Aquamark loves as high of memory clockrates as possible. In my previous system much faster CPU/Video, etc never increased the score much as all. Through 3-4 upgrades the score was almost the same. But all you have to do is increase the memory clocks from 1200 to 1600-1700 on the i7 and the score goes up like 20%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColonelCain

You'd better lock it and the two chips that go with it in a safe... else Movieman might rob you tonight.... :p:

Have you tried running 8 VM's on it? How many PCI-E slots? :slobber:

---

Gem was sarcasm. Bloody thing won't boot :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blauhung

I'm unsure, but I think there is something in the plan that just probably hasn't been announced as there isn't really much demand for the middle ground right now.

---

Please don't take this the wrong way or just keep ignoring me if you like. You guys really don't have lot to offer in the "middle ground" right now. AMD not only has the low end covered, where most of the current sales are in this screwed up economy, but most of the "middle ground" as well. AMD's high end is stuck in the middle. Offer more affordable "middle ground" products and sales and demand would increase, bad economy or not.

DC vs TC wasn't tested right IMHO, the system has to be heavily task/ed to show why TC would be needed. It doesn't reflect negatively on i7 as at least two posters might have implied since just because it's there, doesn't mean its needed if the system will not be stressed out. But if that's the case, why bother?

Bandwidth isn't or hasn't been a problem IMHO, since real DDR 3200 and not high latency PC-2700 re-badged as PC-3200 shipped. It is why I said and got flamed for, IMC on the a Single Socket Desktop is almost a Gimmick. Core 2 pretty much proved that.

Again, i7 needs a frackin commom sense platform:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Please don't take this the wrong way or just keep ignoring me if you like. You guys really don't have lot to offer in the "middle ground" right now. AMD not only has the low end covered, where most of the current sales are in this screwed up economy, but most of the "middle ground" as well. AMD's high end is stuck in the middle. Offer more affordable "middle ground" products and sales and demand would increase, bad economy or not.

DC vs TC wasn't tested right IMHO, the system has to be heavily task/ed to show why TC would be needed. It doesn't reflect negatively on i7 as at least two posters might have implied since just because it's there, doesn't mean its needed if the system will not be stressed out. But if that's the case, why bother?

---

I agree completely that AMD does have a very strong and competitively priced middle ground right now with Phenom/PhenomII going up against C2Q's right now. It's not that Intel doesn't have a lot to offer as there are a complete range of performance that directly competes with AMD at pretty much any level you can point out, it's mostly that there just isn't anything new. The goal of i5 is to offer a platform that has been cut down in simplicty and cost of ownership and will perform on par with current i7 products out now as they will be replaced shortly after i5 release with Westmere. i5 will be that more affordable middle ground as the platform itself has less components on it and it uses less power.

Now the more I think about the probable lifespan of i5, the more I can see why the platform may not see a direct 32nm refresh with a Westmere based chip. I completely forget what it's called at the moment, but the 32nm dual core with a MCM'd IGP has been pulled into this year, showing Intel's confidence in the 32nm process. This also allows for an accelerated timeframe on Sandy Bridge which can pull in and overshadow the release of a Westmere based middle ground quad core near Q4'10. So not speaking as an employee, there's a chance that we will could see the new architecture come in on both middle and high end segments before 2011

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Bandwidth isn't or hasn't been a problem IMHO, since real DDR 3200 and not high latency PC-2700 re-badged as PC-3200 shipped. It is why I said and got flamed for, IMC on the a Single Socket Desktop is almost a Gimmick. Core 2 pretty much proved that.

Again, i7 needs a frackin commom sense platform:rolleyes:

---

Again, I agree with you, IMC and tri-channel on i7 is not really needed, but it's not there as a selling point although marketing people need to use it that way. It is there to make the platform work using the server chips that require Tylersburg as a hub. We will really see the benefit in lower power and lower platform complexity on i5. The fact that there's no longer a NB does help a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blauhung

I agree completely that AMD does have a very strong and competitively priced middle ground right now with Phenom/PhenomII going up against C2Q's right now. It's not that Intel doesn't have a lot to offer as there are a complete range of performance that directly competes with AMD at pretty much any level you can point out, it's mostly that there just isn't anything new. The goal of i5 is to offer a platform that has been cut down in simplicty and cost of ownership and will perform on par with current i7 products out now as they will be replaced shortly after i5 release with Westmere. i5 will be that more affordable middle ground as the platform itself has less components on it and it uses less power.

Now the more I think about the probable lifespan of i5, the more I can see why the platform may not see a direct 32nm refresh with a Westmere based chip. I completely forget what it's called at the moment, but the 32nm dual core with a MCM'd IGP has been pulled into this year, showing Intel's confidence in the 32nm process. This also allows for an accelerated timeframe on Sandy Bridge which can pull in and overshadow the release of a Westmere based middle ground quad core near Q4'10. So not speaking as an employee, there's a chance that we will could see the new architecture come in on both middle and high end segments before 2011



Again, I agree with you, IMC and tri-channel on i7 is not really needed, but it's not there as a selling point although marketing people need to use it that way. It is there to make the platform work using the server chips that require Tylersburg as a hub. We will really see the benefit in lower power and lower platform complexity on i5. The fact that there's no longer a NB does help a lot.

---

That for that great common sense reply. The problem isn't AMD, it hasn't been performance since the first Conroe tests showed up. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Real prices are lower, but this is of set by this screwed up WORLD economy.

I really do get it as far as the whole High-End only and wait for the i5 that is more sensible. The problem is what if the economy is even sicker then?

Look, many companies are reaching out to folks during these harder times than when the cheapest A-X2 sold for $339. You have restaurants serving cheaper menus, car dealers offering to take your card back if you lose your Job and not mess up your credit, Intel should do something more along these lines maybe. Anyway, thank you very much for listening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Look, many companies are reaching out to folks during these harder times than when the cheapest A-X2 sold for $339. You have restaurants serving cheaper menus, car dealers offering to take your card back if you lose your Job and not mess up your credit, Intel should do something more along these lines maybe. Anyway, thank you very much for listening.

---

I don't know how much cheaper you want your systems... retailers are selling dualcore (X2, Pentium E) systems with 2gb for less then 180€.

If i compare this with 3 years ago its just unbelivable (singelcore Semprons with 1 gig sold for ~250€ back then).
Even now with the screwed up economy, computers get cheaper and cheaper and performance increases.

Try comparing 1600MHz dual vs 1600MHz tripple instead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

I don't know how much cheaper you want your systems... retailers are selling dualcore (X2, Pentium E) systems with 2gb for less then 180€.

If i compare this with 3 years ago its just unbelivable (singelcore Semprons with 1 gig sold for ~250€ back then).
Even now with the screwed up economy, computers get cheaper and cheaper and performance increases.

---

No, I'm talking about $235 to $250 i920 Processor and a $130 to $150 mobo. Something like that Gigabyte X58 with only 3 RAM slots. See, we know it only needs 2 X 2GB sticks of memory:up: This would then push the current Q9550 to a sweeter $220 retail and just leave the Q9650 around $315 and don't touch the top model. On topic, knowing I can save money on buying just two sticks is a good thing:up:

Compared to 3 years ago is just what I was talking about. Banks weren't being bailed out all over the world. The US stock market was breaking records 3 years ago. The current money climate can't be compared to 3 years ago. Hell, it can't even be compared to Last year about this time. If the economy/s didn't suck so much, my post might look a little different.

Intel doing more to and for the mid-range isn't a call for charity, it just seems to make better BUSINESS sense to me. No, it almost has nothing to do with AMD except it looks it looks like Intel is giving AMD a hand up. It's left a clear section of the market for AMD to have to themselves. In the current climate, a $300 processor might look like a 5 or 6 hundred dollar processor did 3 years ago.

Last but not least, one AMD Fan was absolutely correct when he said something like; How will the current i7/X58 buyers feel when i5 ships and they see how they got ripped off? I once said during all of the secrete AMD Phenom stuff that if AMD had something to show, they'd show it. Holding back i5 is Intel's version of the same thing. They know i5 would show i7/X58 isn't all that and not really the Bees knees.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Last but not least, one AMD Fan was absolutely correct when he said something like; How will the current i7/X58 buyers feel when i5 ships and they see how they got ripped off? I once said during all of the secrete AMD Phenom stuff that if AMD had something to show, they'd show it. Holding back i5 is Intel's version of the same thing. They know i5 would show i7/X58 isn't all that and not really the Bees knees.;)

---

Riped off?

Everyone who buys/bought the X58 platform should know that the platform is a server platform and comes with a premium, its not like the extra layers and components on the boards come for free.

Complaining that the a server platform (i7) is more expensive compared to a platform that is made for the mainstream and desigend to be cheap is ridiculous.

Im glad that I did go with X58, cause so i can jump right onto a westmere hexacore thanks to compatibility. I can't do that with i5.

Also dont think that while the i5 platform is labled as "cheap", that there won't be 200€ plus mobos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Last but not least, one AMD Fan was absolutely correct when he said something like; How will the current i7/X58 buyers feel when i5 ships and they see how they got ripped off? I once said during all of the secrete AMD Phenom stuff that if AMD had something to show, they'd show it. Holding back i5 is Intel's version of the same thing. They know i5 would show i7/X58 isn't all that and not really the Bees knees.;)

---

absolutely correct!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Riped off?

Everyone who buys/bought the X58 platform should know that the platform is a server platform and comes with a premium, its not like the extra layers and components on the boards come for free.

Complaining that the a server platform (i7) is more expensive compared to a platform that is made for the mainstream and desigend to be cheap is ridiculous.

Im glad that I did go with X58, cause so i can jump right onto a westmere hexacore thanks to compatibility. I can't do that with i5.

Also dont think that while the i5 platform is labled as "cheap", that there won't be 200€ plus mobos.

---

I don't think so. Comes at a premium why? It is the pinnacle but it is a FAKE pinnacle since they have to hold back the mainstream i5 to make it look that way. If it is High where are the high end results?

All you hear about is that X58 is High-end, there's no room for a MID-RANGED version since it is so high-end. Folks looking for something not so high-end should wait for the "lower performance cheaper stripped down version called the i5 and P55". So I must respectfully disagree with you here. What on the X58 that drives up the cost?

I wasn't promised a Server chip when talking to Intel employees last year about this time. Also, I have less to complain about processor wise and NO, I don't see the Processor as much of a Rip-Off as X58.

@Nedjo
See? Right or wrong, I call em' as I see em' and Intel shouldn't get a free pass here IMHO.

Blah blah blah...

Way I see it. I had 4Gigs of memory and was starting to use it all up, now I have 6Gigs with some breathing room and if I need more well I go to 12 Gigs with plenty of room to spare. Much more options so im happy about having 3 Channel ram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

I don't think so. Comes at a premium why? It is the pinnacle but it is a FAKE pinnacle since they have to hold back the mainstream i5 to make it look that way. If it is High where are the high end results?

All you hear about is that X58 is High-end, there's no room for a MID-RANGED version since it is so high-end. Folks looking for something not so high-end should wait for the "lower performance cheaper stripped down version called the i5 and P55". So I must respectfully disagree with you here. What on the X58 that drives up the cost?

I wasn't promised a Server chip when talking to Intel employees last year about this time. Also, I have less to complain about processor wise and NO, I don't see the Processor as much of a Rip-Off as X58.

@Nedjo
See? Right or wrong, I call em' as I see em' and Intel shouldn't get a free pass here IMHO.

---

This isn't any different than when AMD did 4x4 (in a sense at least). Releasing a platform that can command a higher price only to have the "midrange" catch up isn't anything new. Sure, it would be nice to have lower prices, but then you have to consider margins. x58 motherboards already are hitting the $200 range, which is reasonable considering the complexity of the components. I guess I just don't see the point of constantly demanding lower prices. The pricing will come down soon enough, and the economy is bad, but the volume of processors sold is good enough for the moment (for Intel). Realize, Intel could lower prices enough such that people would buy more mid-range, but then they are simply buying less of the atom-based processors/systems. Another words, they are going to buy volume x of something; lowering prices changes the percentage of product y in total volume x, but not volume x itself (for the most part). If the atom gets them better margins, then they are more likely to keep things as is than lower prices elsewhere too much.

In terms of feeling bad you bought i7, if your sad that you paid a lot of money to have the most powerful system available (for the last 6 months at least), then you wouldn't have bought it in the first place. Should the people who bought the E6800 be pissed that the E8400 creams it for less a little over a year later? I don't see any clear brightline as to when we should feel "good" about our purchases based on your analysis. Making a decision based on needs/desires, in conjunction with the current pricing and a little future-perusing ought to be enough. If we can't ever be satisfied (to a point, I'm as much a hardware junky as anyone else :p:) then we have bigger problems than just Intel's pricing to be concerned with...

EDIT: Just to clarify, this is in no way a personal attack. I love to argue (in a constructive sense), and fully expect people to disagree with me.

whats the love affair with core i5 about?
imo, its gonna face some tough competition from cheap yorkfields in the mainstream market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xVeinx

This isn't any different than when AMD did 4x4 (in a sense at least). Releasing a platform that can command a higher price only to have the "midrange" catch up isn't anything new. Sure, it would be nice to have lower prices, but then you have to consider margins. x58 motherboards already are hitting the $200 range, which is reasonable considering the complexity of the components. I guess I just don't see the point of constantly demanding lower prices. The pricing will come down soon enough, and the economy is bad, but the volume of processors sold is good enough for the moment (for Intel). Realize, Intel could lower prices enough such that people would buy more mid-range, but then they are simply buying less of the atom-based processors/systems. Another words, they are going to buy volume x of something; lowering prices changes the percentage of product y in total volume x, but not volume x itself (for the most part). If the atom gets them better margins, then they are more likely to keep things as is than lower prices elsewhere too much.

In terms of feeling bad you bought i7, if your sad that you paid a lot of money to have the most powerful system available (for the last 6 months at least), then you wouldn't have bought it in the first place. Should the people who bought the E6800 be pissed that the E8400 creams it for less a little over a year later? I don't see any clear brightline as to when we should feel "good" about our purchases based on your analysis. Making a decision based on needs/desires, in conjunction with the current pricing and a little future-perusing ought to be enough. If we can't ever be satisfied (to a point, I'm as much a hardware junky as anyone else :p:) then we have bigger problems than just Intel's pricing to be concerned with...

EDIT: Just to clarify, this is in no way a personal attack. I love to argue (in a constructive sense), and fully expect people to disagree with me.

---

No offense taken and I never thought your post was any kind of attack on me.:up:

I liked your reply in fact. My problem isn't just pricing here, all I'm saying is that the Platform ISN'T that complex enough to demand current prices IMHO. I don't see anything on the board that drives up the costs. Someone please point out why X58 costs what it does? In fact, it has LESS than the X48 that has to have a Memory Controller. Oh wait, the Extra PCI-E lanes are worth what? As I asked the other Intel employee, what if I want a 940 i7 Nehalem on a none-gaming motherboard for a workstation? I was asked to build at least two rigs like that. See, it has NOTHING to do with what I can afford or not. I never liked it when Intel or AMD Pigeon Holed me.

No, we are supposed to be Geeks, we're supposed to be a little smarter when it comes to hardware. What happened? We got Geeks paying $250 for Killer NIC's, $200 for CPU based sound cards that are nothing more than Mobo sound chip sets with $5 DAC's (my DAC's $6.75 shipped). As long as we tell them raping us is OK, you think they'll stop? We don't need 3 channels of RAM in most cases. i5 would hold up well against i7 and i7 sure as hell doesn't need X58 to shine.

I got NOTHING against 1K Top models or even the $500 mid-ranged versions. In fact, I think the i940 at its current price is a great deal:up: What would Donnie27 want? A frakkin' Motherboard with 1 PCI-E X16 slot 4 1X PCI-E and maybe two PCI slots. I'd like NO built in sound and at least a real Intel NIC, not Marvel or Realtech crap shipping on current $200 motherboards:rolleyes: I DON'T like paying for crap I'm not going to use. Instead of an i920, I'd love to used the 40 to $70 saved on the motherboard and get an i940.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

whats the love affair with core i5 about?
imo, its gonna face some tough competition from cheap yorkfields in the mainstream market

---

Not at Yorfield's current prices. X58 Motherboards are one of the reasons Yorkfield can hold their value.

Good post.

Personally, I've found little benefit in the jump from Wolfie to i7. Fell for the excessive cheerleading going on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

I liked your reply in fact. My problem isn't just pricing here, all I'm saying is that the Platform ISN'T that complex enough to demand current prices IMHO. I don't see anything on the board that drives up the costs. Someone please point out why X58 costs what it does? In fact, it has LESS than the X48 that has to have a Memory Controller. Oh wait, the Extra PCI-E lanes are worth what? As I asked the other Intel employee, what if I want a 940 i7 Nehalem on a none-gaming motherboard for a workstation? I was asked to build at least two rigs like that. See, it has NOTHING to do with what I can afford or not. I never liked it when Intel or AMD Pigeon Holed me.

---

Wowowo .. wo... stop right there.

You know that X58 mobos are all 8-layer boards while the X38/X48 where 6 layer and dont talk about the P3x/P4x boards that where 4 layers only (remember the bug why intel delayed the mainstream yorkfields, of course there where a few exceptions).

You have the double ammount of layers compared to the cheap mainstream boards. It has to be more expensive, cause with any additional layer you increase the complexity.

Another factor is the X58 chipset itself, yeah maybe its less complex then the former MCH, but it has far higher quality requierments then the former nonserver chipsets, and thats cause its a server chipset.
Tylersburg (X58) is the same chipset you'll find on servergrade hardware, thought it don't needs to pass server validaition (if its sold as X58), its build to pass it. That don't come for free either, development costs/validition costs are also a part of the price for a product.

Now add the additional traces the come with the 2 additional memory slots.

Add the developments costs from the manufacturers cause its a whole new plattform, cause for the old S775 there where already all basics designs done, what quirkes the platform had and which way it worked best. With S1336 they had to start form square one.

Plus add the additional bling bling and you have your 250€ plus motherboard.

Im not saying that expensive motherboards are a good thing to happen, but just getting angry that the boards are more expensive, cause of there nature (server), then mainstream boards makes you look like an amature. :p:
(nothing personal)

P55 on the other hand make quite a few things more affordable (4 layers, only 4 dimm slots, less validation costs for the chipset, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaskuli

Good post.

Personally, I've found little benefit in the jump from Wolfie to i7. Fell for the excessive cheerleading going on here.

---

Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Wowowo .. wo... stop right there.

You know that X58 mobos are all 8-layer boards while the X38/X48 where 6 layer and dont talk about the P3x/P4x boards that where 4 layers only (remember the bug why intel delayed the mainstream yorkfields, of course there where a few exceptions).

You have the double ammount of layers compared to the cheap mainstream boards. It has to be more expensive, cause with any additional layer you increase the complexity.

Another factor is the X58 chipset itself, yeah maybe its less complex then the former MCH, but it has far higher quality requierments then the former nonserver chipsets, and thats cause its a server chipset.
Tylersburg (X58) is the same chipset you'll find on servergrade hardware, thought it don't needs to pass server validaition (if its sold as X58), its build to pass it. That don't come for free either, development costs/validition costs are also a part of the price for a product.

Now add the additional traces the come with the 2 additional memory slots.

Add the developments costs from the manufacturers cause its a whole new plattform, cause for the old S775 there where already all basics designs done, what quirkes the platform had and which way it worked best. With S1336 they had to start form square one.

Plus add the additional bling bling and you have your 250€ plus motherboard.

Im not saying that expensive motherboards are a good thing to happen, but just getting angry that the boards are more expensive, cause of there nature (server), then mainstream boards makes you look like an amature. :p:
(nothing personal)

P55 on the other hand make quite a few things more affordable (4 layers, only 4 dimm slots, less validation costs for the chipset, etc.).

---

First, I saw where P55 was supposed to be 6 layers and only i3 or whatever they're calling it was supposed to be 4. Heck must have read bad info.

No offense taken;) As the old wise tale goes, I was jut pointing out that the emperor had no clothes on and was in fact Naked. I'm not bitter or angry, I'm more amazed than anything. Maybe add to that a little tickled:ROTF: I mean no offense either when I say I'd rather be an amateur than a sucker or beta tester.

What next? Should we also run out and buy Killer NIC's?:D Maybe their sales would have increased had they renamed it Blood Rage, Maximus, Rampage or etc...

The growing trend is for Manufacturers to call it a Gamer Version and stick a high price tag on it. It's as if "Enthusiast" has become a code word for Geeks with more money than common sense or brains! No, that stripped drown Gigabyte X58 has no "Bling" to speak of. check this Open Box?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...2E16813128375R

No thanks Hornet, I already got at least two bud's resold their rigs on EBay and hell, one made a profit. I'm sure that was a seasoned enthusiast and not an Amateur either:D Again, if i5 isn't held back, i7 is clearly seen for the virtual Gimmick it is for MOST USERS.

Let me say this one more time-->If X58 is a Server Processor Motherboard chip set, please pull all of that crap off off and sell as a Server board. I'd be first in line! I'm not complaining about 8 layers, NEVER said that. We don't need 6 RAM slots or 3 or 4 PCI-E 16X slots. Even it were $200, I'd consider buying one. I'm not cheap or broke just don't want crap I'll never use:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Thank you!



First, I saw where P55 was supposed to be 6 layers and only i3 or whatever they're calling it was supposed to be 4. Heck must have read bad info.

No offense taken;) As the old wise tale goes, I was jut pointing out that the emperor had no clothes on and was in fact Naked. I'm not bitter or angry, I'm more amazed than anything. Maybe add to that a little tickled:ROTF: I mean no offense either when I say I'd rather be an amateur than a sucker or beta tester.

What next? Should we also run out and buy Killer NIC's?:D Maybe their sales would have increased had they renamed it Blood Rage, Maximus, Rampage or etc...

The growing trend is for Manufacturers to call it a Gamer Version and stick a high price tag on it. It's as if "Enthusiast" has become a code word for Geeks with more money than common sense or brains! No, that stripped drown Gigabyte X58 has no "Bling" to speak of. check this Open Box?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...2E16813128375R

No thanks Hornet, I already got at least two bud's resold their rigs on EBay and hell, one made a profit. I'm sure that was a seasoned enthusiast and not an Amateur either:D Again, if i5 isn't held back, i7 is clearly seen for the virtual Gimmick it is for MOST USERS.

Let me say this one more time-->If X58 is a Server Processor Motherboard chip set, please pull all of that crap off off and sell as a Server board. I'd be first in line! I'm not complaining about 8 layers, NEVER said that. We don't need 6 RAM slots or 3 or 4 PCI-E 16X slots. Even it were $200, I'd consider buying one. I'm not cheap or broke just don't want crap I'll never use:rolleyes:

---

i3 and i5 uses the exact same mobo.

And dont try and play an enthutiast if you aint one. i7/x58 is obviously out of your league. Its like whining to Ferrari about their cars is too expensive for the regular family man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

regardless of what reasons you have to not like i7, what makes you think i5 will be different? i5 will be the same, cut down, and cheaper...

---

who said i don't like i7? my Q6600 is good enough for the tasks that i use it for.Virtualization and sql server.
i just think triple channel, onboard sas and other server features are near useless for most desktop/workstation users. so no need to waste money on such things... kinda like Killer Nic lol
having said that, i dont mind spending money on things i need and/or useful like the Auzentech xfi-forte or Logitech dinovo edge (htpc)