No offense taken, but I think we'll be having this discussion again later when AMD's architecture finally comes out. And I'll wager that Intel will be the one laughing all the way to the bank.
----------- Brian Follow Me [image: LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/brianweeden> [image: Twitter] <http://www.twitter.com/brianweeden> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Stan Zaske <[email protected]> wrote: > So somebody really is reading my posts. Thanks! > > > > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 01:16:16 -0600, Greg Sevart <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/ >>> >> >> >> > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >
