Intel plans to deliberately limit Sandy Bridge overclocking - Hardware & Software

I'm waiting for Sub-$200-300 8 cores from Intel honestly >_> Like that'll ever happen though

[QUOTE=Odellus;23557288]except that CPU is total garbage, 640[/QUOTE] so is the Q8300

LGA 1155 is the group of lower-end entry level processors with an IGP on the dies. So this is natural to reduce costs and make the entry-level more accessible.

[QUOTE=Odellus;23557288]except that CPU is total garbage, 640[/QUOTE] Garbage? What? I've used both X4 620 and currently X4 635 any they're both great processors for the money. You can get Athlon II X4 620 for like 90 USD.

Why limit overclocking? It doesn't hurt them that we like to overclock our CPUs? The warrenty falls right off at the OC and is the OC'ers problem if he fucks up, so I see now reason to limit it. The E8xxx series were great overclockers, so is the i7 if you have the right cooler. I was looking forward to sandy bridge, especially to see how well it'd do with overclocking.

[QUOTE=Blackwater;23564719]Why limit overclocking? It doesn't hurt them that we like to overclock our CPUs? The warrenty falls right off at the OC and is the OC'ers problem if he fucks up, so I see now reason to limit it. The E8xxx series were great overclockers, so is the i7 if you have the right cooler. I was looking forward to sandy bridge, especially to see how well it'd do with overclocking.[/QUOTE] I'm guessing that they're trying to force people to buy the more expensive Sandy Bridge which is simply a cheaper one with a higher clock speed instead of just buying a cheap one and OC'ing it which is what tons of people do right now.

[QUOTE=Zombii;23542887]I really don't think you'd need to overclock with a Sandy Bridge proc anyway.[/QUOTE] Yes you do. Since it will probably be another dead-end processor (no upgrade possibility outside that series. Like the i7, i5, i3 etc) you're going to end up overclocking it at some point. 2-3% won't do much later on in its life anyways. [QUOTE=Odellus;23557288] they said Sandy Bridge is mainstream so if I'm just stupid or interpreting this wrong, I'm assuming there will either be higher end Sandy Bridge CPUs that will allow external clock cycles or there will be a whole other socket/branch of CPUs[/QUOTE] There will. Sandybridge will be mainstream, there will be the extreme series and the lower end series as well. So like the i3, i5, i7, i7 extreme. However, I am sure they'll jostle all the sockets around to gain more royalities for the technology and milk the consumer/industry some more. I'm glad I went with AMD. Atleast they didn't force you to update your motherboard when Deneb came out, or Thuban, and probably bulldozer you can get past with a bios flash (AM3)

If this is true I will go with AMD with my next CPU.

[QUOTE=Noz;23564871]I'm guessing that they're trying to force people to buy the more expensive Sandy Bridge which is simply a cheaper one with a higher clock speed instead of just buying a cheap one and OC'ing it which is what tons of people do right now.[/QUOTE] That sounds reasonable. Yet who has money for something like the i7 980x? It probably won't work, people will go price/performance unless they're rich.

[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;23564891]Yes you do. Since it will probably be another dead-end processor (no upgrade possibility outside that series. Like the i7, i5, i3 etc) you're going to end up overclocking it at some point. 2-3% won't do much later on in its life anyways. There will. Sandybridge will be mainstream, there will be the extreme series and the lower end series as well. So like the i3, i5, i7, i7 extreme. However, I am sure they'll jostle all the sockets around to gain more royalities for the technology and milk the consumer/industry some more. I'm glad I went with AMD. Atleast they didn't force you to update your motherboard when Deneb came out, or Thuban, and probably bulldozer you can get past with a bios flash (AM3)[/QUOTE] well, just have fun when AMD hits a wall with their socket and Intel gains another massive lead in performance [editline]02:05PM[/editline] AMD is trying to do what Intel did with LGA 775 and it's not working

The assumption in this thread seems to be that Intel is doing this to intentionally hamper overclocking. There may be more to this than that. Perhaps syncing the clocks of all of the various function greatly improves system performance as a whole?

I bet this will be a one generation thing.

[QUOTE=Odellus;23567888]well, just have fun when AMD hits a wall with their socket and Intel gains another massive lead in performance [editline]02:05PM[/editline] AMD is trying to do what Intel did with LGA 775 and it's not working[/QUOTE] you got it backwards, LGA775 didn't work, AM* is [editline]01:44AM[/editline] [QUOTE=ChristopherB;23572920]The assumption in this thread seems to be that Intel is doing this to intentionally hamper overclocking. There may be more to this than that. Perhaps syncing the clocks of all of the various function greatly improves system performance as a whole?[/QUOTE] it doesn't, that's why they stopped doing it in 1995.

Sandy Bridge isn't 1995. It may well work that way.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;23583965]you got it backwards, LGA775 didn't work, AM* is [editline]01:44AM[/editline] it doesn't, that's why they stopped doing it in 1995.[/QUOTE] what are you talking about? AMD's highest end CPU is still worse than the best and second best LGA 775 CPUs [editline]03:52AM[/editline] as it stands, AMD has nothing to offer enthusiast gamers or even the high end market

[QUOTE=Odellus;23584860]what are you talking about? AMD's highest end CPU is still worse than the best and second best LGA 775 CPUs[/QUOTE] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/-mwi.jpg[/img] and AMD's highest end CPU doesn't cost $1200

I'm running an MSI board with a VIA chipset, LGA775 Socket, a Pentium 4 (Prescott core) @ 3.0GHz stock, with 768MB of DDR400 (1x 512MB + 1x 256MB) and an ATi AGP 4x Radeon 7000, 64MB. It runs Linux Mint 9 flawlessly, but I need a serious upgrade for gaming. I'm thinking of building a rig with an i7 920, a GTX 280, and 8GB Ram on Windows 7 x64. Sound delicious?

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;23585397][img]http://imgkk.com/i/-mwi.jpg[/img] and AMD's highest end CPU doesn't cost $1200[/QUOTE] Hurrr [editline]01:00PM[/editline] What this benchmark is trying to prove? [editline]01:02PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pixel Heart;23587030]I'm thinking of building a rig with an i7 920, a GTX 280, and 8GB Ram on Windows 7 x64. Sound delicious?[/QUOTE] Go in LGA 1156 socket instead (i7 860/870 or i5 750) and only with 4GB RAM DDR3. [editline]01:03PM[/editline] LGA 1366 socket is a shitload expensive for almost nothing. Especially on a gaming rig

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;23585397][img_thumb]http://imgkk.com/i/-mwi.jpg[/img_thumb] and AMD's highest end CPU doesn't cost $1200[/QUOTE] because that totally shows in games right [editline]03:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pixel Heart;23587030]I'm running an MSI board with a VIA chipset, LGA775 Socket, a Pentium 4 (Prescott core) @ 3.0GHz stock, with 768MB of DDR400 (1x 512MB + 1x 256MB) and an ATi AGP 4x Radeon 7000, 64MB. It runs Linux Mint 9 flawlessly, but I need a serious upgrade for gaming. I'm thinking of building a rig with an i7 920, a GTX 280, and 8GB Ram on Windows 7 x64. Sound delicious?[/QUOTE] why a 920, why a 280, why 8GB RAM?

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;23585397][img]http://imgkk.com/i/-mwi.jpg[/img] and AMD's highest end CPU doesn't cost $1200[/QUOTE] It's called overclocking. You really don't need a hexacore unless you're doing serious rendering.

synthetic

[QUOTE=Falubii;23596475]It's called overclocking. You really don't need a hexacore unless you're doing serious rendering.[/QUOTE] Lets not start this again, quads quickly showed us that four cores are superior to two cores, even in applications that doesn't take use of the last two. (Because of newer technology, of course.) And most applications are opening support for multicore, not just 4, but being programmed for unlimited amounts.

[QUOTE=Blackwater;23596723]Lets not start this again, quads quickly showed us that four cores are superior to two cores, even in applications that doesn't take use of the last two. (Because of newer technology, of course.) And most applications are opening support for multicore, not just 4, but being programmed for unlimited amounts.[/QUOTE] wrong

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;23585397]CPU chart and AMD's highest end CPU doesn't cost $1200[/QUOTE] I had no idea that AMD was getting this close. That's a good thing, competition and prices might drop, and then I'll just get the best price/performance ratio in 1½-2½ years from now. [editline]08:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Odellus;23596765]wrong[/QUOTE] Which part of it? I7 will beat any core 2 duo, because the chip is simply better and faster. Even in whatever that only supports two cores.

Sadly in most applications (I said most) a quad core isn't utilized to it's full potential, especially in games. Things like rendering and encoding do benefit from more cores. I can only think of one game that can use six cores.

[QUOTE=Blackwater;23596777]I had no idea that AMD was getting this close. That's a good thing, competition and prices might drop, and then I'll just get the best price/performance ratio in 1½-2½ years from now. [editline]08:08PM[/editline] Which part of it? I7 will beat any core 2 duo, because the chip is simply better and faster. Even in whatever that only supports two cores.[/QUOTE] uh core 2 quad

i7 generally beats C2Q in applications that only support two or even four threads. [editline]08:12PM[/editline] and who gives a fuck if a benchmark is synthetic, 9 times out of 10 synthetic and real-world benchmarks line up perfectly anyway.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;23603371]i7 generally beats C2Q in applications that only support two or even four threads. [editline]08:12PM[/editline] and who gives a fuck if a benchmark is synthetic, 9 times out of 10 synthetic and real-world benchmarks line up perfectly anyway.[/QUOTE] no, no they don't never [editline]09:14PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;23603371]i7 generally beats C2Q in applications that only support two or even four threads. [editline]08:12PM[/editline] and who gives a fuck if a benchmark is synthetic, 9 times out of 10 synthetic and real-world benchmarks line up perfectly anyway.[/QUOTE] i meant core 2 duo vs core 2 quad

[QUOTE=Odellus;23603413]no, no they don't never[/QUOTE] nice rebuttal [editline]08:32PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Odellus;23603413]i meant core 2 duo vs core 2 quad[/QUOTE] considering that the Core 2 Quad is just two Core 2 Duo chips on one die, you should probably expect that.

buttsex i want to love you but you're making it hard [editline]11:23PM[/editline] i mean my dick [editline]11:28PM[/editline] [IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8914988/Captures/excelcapture-20100724-232711.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8914988/Captures/excelcapture-20100724-232647.png[/IMG] And I know that a Q9650/Q9550 is better than a 965.