Quote Originally Posted by Seraphiel View Post
That I do understand, but still it doesn't make any sense... The choices made would come down to clocks, voltage, lanes, features etc... not something not already possible to manipulate today. What on earth is so crucially different? But not different enough to allow it all to manipulated on an alternative platform.

I am not trying to be an ass here, but simply trying to understand those decisions made by Intel.

I you were the FUD, I wouldn't think much about your information. But you present yourself as someone in the know, and I accept you as such, or else I wouldn't take your info seriously at all.

If you can't provide more than this, I accept that and thank you for your infos so far! I don't believe you lie, but I think you are not giving the complete picture here (NDA?).

But of course, I can be stupid, and let us then just leave it at that
I'm not trying to be argumentative, sorry if it comes out that way, and your not being stupid, as you are bringing up the good questions that need to be answered to keep people on track here. Really I'm just trying to clear up the fear mongering that normally just comes out of FUD.

The basic differences between the platforms are the amount of stuff that is integrated into the CPU package and how that affects where OC'ers can tweak stuff from.

On the high end Bloomfield parts, you have the Cores the cache as normal, plus a QPI controller and the 3 channel memory controller. All the clock generation is done on a PLL that is on the mobo and the reference frequency is set on the Tylersburg NB. To overclock here you can raise the QPI frequency as it will be the reference frequency that the CPU and memory speeds are split from with CPU multies and memory ratios. There will also be unlocked EE chips that allow CPU multiplier changes.

On Lynnfield which is where the bulk of this forum is interested. Intel moved all the rest of the NB functions onto the package. I'm not sure about the truth of the idea of an integrated PLL from the FUD article, but it makes sense to me. All the clock generation and splitting can now be done in the package and there is no need for any interconnect other then talking to the I/O hub/SB. Removing the interconnect/bus generates huge savings in latency and power consumption as everything is right there, and since there's less chips on the board, the manufacturing costs go down and that results in lower cost to the consumer. That is why the platform is setup this way. The unfortunate for us side effect is that the only ways one could overclock this system is to either alter how the PLL operates (it's in the package and most likely locked at whatever frequency it's set at) or change the multipliers on the CPU (they are also most likely locked). Really there's no way to change the speed once it is set after the binning process in the factory. Because Intel has compromised all the overclocking capabilities on the mainstream platform to save consumers money and power usage in the long run, they created the Bloomfield platform to do the best they can to give this comunity something to play with. Going as far as develping an offshoot of the server line that works very nicely as a High end desktop with a full set of OC capabilities.

Quote Originally Posted by Movieman View Post
To be fair to Blauhung, he works for Intel and I'm sure there's things he's not allowed to say and I respect that.
On the other hand he's many times filled out what was speculation with facts and is a great asset to this forum.
One more thing;
I've gotten to know him a bit as he's helping on the WCG team and what I've seen is a decent guy who is here like the rest of us because he enjoys the hobby. I think this adds up to a win-win for everyone.
hehe, thanks dude and everyone remember, i'm not posting any inside info here, this is all stuff that's available outside. And I'm not speaking for the company just my own personal observations.



And real quick I wanted to present a counter point to those that are thinking about boycotting Intel systems in their decisions where they work.

I believe business decisions should still be about what gives the best bang for your buck. Middle of next year is about when both Intel and AMD mainstream systems should be in full swing. Say AMD does come out with better performance/Watt and $. More power to them and i would expect you to fill offices with their systems. If Intel puts out a system that wins in those categories over AMD then I would expect that to be the system of choice there.

Regardless of that outcome, those who would be voting with their purchases by buying AMD because Intel didn't release an overclockable mainstream platform, would be also voting against all the decisions that are based on reducing cost of purchase and improving power consumption in the mainstream desktop.