While I don't mean to be an Intel apologist (I personally find many of the moves in this latest generation to be, in effect, anti-enthusiast and frustrating as all hell), I really don't think that any of their changes were made for the express purpose of screwing over the enthusiast. The K edition processors are only marginally more expensive than their "locked" counterparts. Turbo modes are more impressive than before--a 3.3GHz base clock runs up to 3.7GHz when one core is active (3.4 with all 4, given enough thermal headroom)--which may very well supplant overclocking for the more common crowd that may have previously dabbled. And, contrary to what you've described, excluding the lowly i3 series, ALL of the remaining i5 and i7 SB chips actually DO support increasing multiplier by 4x. That means that your 3.3GHz stock chip can actually run at 3.8GHz (4 cores active) to 4.1GHz (1 core active). While it's definitely shy of the 4.5GHz+ the unlocked variants can hit, it's something. So why would Intel make these moves, if not to screw the enthusiast? While I can only speculate, there are several good answers:
1. Moving more components, such as clock generators and more and more NB/PCH style functions, into the processor reduces motherboard complexity (fewer components, less PCB real estate use, and hypothetically simpler design), thereby potentially reducing costs and quality variation (both on the good and bad spectrum, admittedly) 2. Moving these components onto the processor and PCH may have positive power consequences. Intel will have a SB weighing in at a mere 17 watts--that's fairly impressive given that includes the chip itself, memory controller, a good chunk of core logic, system interfaces (ie: PCIe), and GPU. 3. There may be technical reasons. Given that more of the system components that use the reference clock are moving onto the processor and PCH, there may be stability or other technical reasons that make it more desirable to have a common reference clock generator included as well. Frankly, as we do move more and more components to the processor itself, I think we're going to see decreased socket longevity--not more--for both camps. AMD is to be commended on their effort to have a platform remain relevant for so long, but it'll be interesting to see if they sustain that in the years to come as x86 moves more to the SoC approach that's more common with other architectures. Again, not apologizing for Intel. As a potential consumer, I find a number of aspects of the new platform refresh very unappealing. My main system will probably remain on LGA1366/X58 until both Bulldozer and the LGA2011/X68 platforms are out in the market to duke it out. But I think that you drastically overestimate and demonize Intel's intentions. I also think that you, like most enthusiasts, significantly overestimate the impact of the enthusiast market segment. It's tiny. I honestly believe that if it weren't for the possibility that a good number of enthusiasts likely have influence over the technology purchasing patterns in the organizations to which they belong, we wouldn't receive much attention from either side. If, this time next year, there's been a material difference in the market share positions of either camp, it will have little to do with the grumblings of a few enthusiasts, and everything to do with just how good Bulldozer and Bobcat really are. In the interest of full disclosure, I do tend to lean Intel, but I have no problem buying anything AMD if I feel the situation is best suited for it. My personal systems are quite decidedly a mix of each. In this room alone, I have 4 AMD systems and 2 Intel. Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Stan Zaske > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 11:42 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] Motherboards. > > Brian means well but in this case he is mistaken. The 2500K is the only chip > worth having because it and the 2600K are the only two that overclock. Intel > finally succeeded in getting it's wet dream come true by making it impossible > to overclock the lower margin "cheap" chips thereby giving it's customers less > bang for the buck. The 2600K is out of the running for most because of price > leaving only the 2500K at $210 worth buying for a gaming and hardware > enthusiast. Then you have to buy the Intel chipset mobo because Intel loves > it's customers so much they never allow backwards compatibility (one pin > difference between LGA 1156 and LGA > 1155 for the new socket) because it's just not profitable. I'll be laughing all > the way to the bank when I upgrade to AMD's new architecture this year and > we all owe Intel a vote of thanks for being so anal they will chase much of > their business AMD's way. No offense Brian and have a Happy New Year! > > > > On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:13:34 -0600, FORC5 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > obsolete hopefully means *cheaper* 8-) fp > > > > At 11:19 AM 1/3/2011, Brian Weeden Poked the stick with: > >> Sandy Bridge just came out officially this week and it makes pretty > >> much everything else in the mid and low range obsolete: > >> > >> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge- > r > >> eview/1 > >> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-bridge-upheaval- > in-th > >> e-mobile-landscape > >> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel- > core > >> -i5-2600k-i5-2500k-and-core-i3-2100-tested > >> > >> Quote: > > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
