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/
