|
Mr VacBob posted:A CPU is a much better video encoder than any kind of GPU for all kinds of great reasons The software/hardware issue for GPU's has always been a sort of chicken/egg scenario, so either AMD or nV will have to write their own video encoding software or pay someone else to do it. If they do it properly though it should be better, possibly quite a bit better, than what SB has. KKKLIP ART posted:I'm also waiting for a reasonably priced 120+ GB SSD (I may be waiting for a while) for a boot and some app drive. Ive watched enough of those "boot windows and launch 150 program" videos to see how stupidly fast they are. TOOT BOOT posted:I imagine this will provide a bit of a boost to PC Gaming as soon as these start filtering down into pre-built PCs. BangersInMyKnickers posted:They're "gimping" their GPU to fulfill power/speed/size demands of a market segment that in no way gives a poo poo about their graphics hardware being fully programmable.
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 10:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:Possibly, but there is a huge sector of their business customers that simply aren't going to see any use out of this and if dropping it means cheaper chips, they'll go that route because their workload is serial in nature and 2-4 cores is going to be enough to handle small spikes in load and background tasks while being responsive. Also while I have no proof I kind've doubt it'd be all that power/cost intensive for Intel to have made the SB GPU more programmable. Look at what AMD is doing with Zacate for instance, and on a much inferior process too. BangersInMyKnickers posted:Where are you going to shoehorn GPGPU support in to the Office suite besides Excel jockeys? Especially considering Microsoft is already trying to abstract heavy lifting there to a server cluster behind the workstation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:I don't remember this because it never happened
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 06:46
|
|
|
MachinTrucChose posted:You can't overclock like you used to You know they demo'd a OC'd SB running at ~5Ghz with just the stock cooler and a small overvolt right? 50-100% overclocks on a CPU that is already pretty fast are no joke. Just to stir the pot: looks like AMD may be able to get BD out sooner than 2H 11', at least for servers anyways. So we'll know how it will perform even if we couldn't buy it until May or April or something for a desktop. Reading RWT's BD architecture overview it sure sounds like BD could be pretty fast. Apparently its supposed to reach very high clocks like the P4 or POWER6 while having better per clock performance than current Phenom II chips. If they pull that off AMD could end up with a chip that performs as good or even out performs SB.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2010 02:00
|
|
|
VOS32 was the best cooler from that time period IIRC. Giant hunk of aluminum almost half again as big as the entire Slot A module, only cost like $25 too. Put a few 80mm fans on it (or the ever popular 10k rpm Black Label Delta screamers) and you were set to get those 6-700Mhz Athlons up to nearly 1Ghz. More if you were lucky. I think Golden Orb's and Alpha heatsinks were much more popular back then though. old skool OC chat is awesome but anyone know how much those K series SB's will cost anyways?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
You guys thinking about doing anything really different like putting a a Linux based hypervisor as an option? Or am I mistaken in believing that is possible at all?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2010 14:34
|
|
|
feld posted:Is there a comparable thread for info on Bulldozer, or does nobody care enough to make one? I think they're doing a demo or something either late this month or early next so you should have more news then on it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 05:44
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Irrelevant to me, searching for a market in general. If Intel gets a budget sandy out for the $400-500 laptop market it'll destroy brazos all the way around (as long as it keeps the 12EU config). SB in netbook format would have be downclocked massively on the GPU and CPU. If they kept the 12EU + stock clock config. for the GPU it'd probably be about as good as Brazos's GPU, but they won't be able to. So a SB netbook would probably have a faster CPU but significantly slower GPU, so it'll likely perform worse for most games. It'd also probably still use more power and cost more as well. ULV SB will probably be closer to $600 to start, probably much higher at launch. Brazos based netbooks will probably be around $500-400. Also Bobcat's CPU is much better at single threaded stuff then Atom, almost double the performance there. So "barely better than Atom" is probably a stretch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 10:09
|
|
|
Dr. Gaius Baltar posted:I'm planning on buying a 2500K when it's released on January 5th, just in time for the big early January holiday sales season. I wonder what are the chances that I'll end up regretting not getting Bulldozer over this. Say, if Bulldozer is released in June 2011 and has 30%+ more price/performance. Personally I like AMD since I tend to shoot for bang for the buck, but I'll probably get SB too. ~$215 for the K version of SB i5 will offer some pretty bad rear end bang for the buck if you can get anywhere near 5Ghz like the one Intel has been showing off. I would think you could get a "budget" SB mobo for around $140 at launch, the OC'er ones, sure they'll cost around $200 easy. At least it'll still take DDR3, and with the K versions you just use the multiplier to OC, so I can technically save some money there. Jumped at the 8GB DDR3 1333 for $90 a while back. I don't think it'll get much lower than that really. e: yea its gone up to $100 for the same kit. It might drop down again but I doubt it. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Dec 8, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2010 06:58
|
|
|
dud root posted:I thought Lynnfield was only ~10% greater than C2D clock for clock? I wouldn't say that SATA3 and PCIe 2.0 slots are worth upgrading to SB for though, well unless you've got lots of money to spend, in which case go for it. For those who are strapped for cash right now even with "lovely" PCIe 1.0/1 a USB3 add in card will still be much faster than USB2. While there are SSD's that will max out SATA2 available now you're still talking about real world data transfer rates over or around 260MB/s, which is pretty drat good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 13:21
|
|
|
Sure if your upgrading anyways then its different, absolutely worth the wait. I read your post as "this is stuff is worth it alone", sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
Yea that crap usually lasts only around a few weeks of launch unless the manufacturer has trouble keeping up with demand (a la Radeon 5/6xxx). I think Intel will be able to produce enough without issues. You may even see a price drop on the mobo's by April.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
Latest leaked slides on BD. Looks to be out in April with a slightly updated version of current 8xx chipset. Llano should be out 2 months later. Llano will have to be priced pretty low to compete well with SB I think even if its GPU comes out to over twice as fast. So long as BD is decent this isn't good but not bad for AMD either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
Leaked i5 2500K benches. No overclocking. Some things its significantly faster than the previous gen, others its not faster at all at or even a teensy bit slower, pretty much as expected. At the same clocks of course. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Dec 25, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
Yea this guy got a engineering sample. He posts at XS all the time and got his sample to a little over 5Ghz. Intel also demoed a overclocked system at 4.9Ghz with a stock heatsink running Cinebench before him though. Supposedly you don't need high volts to OC them either, but we'll have to wait and see because all we have right now are ES screens on random sites to go by. If you run stuff at stock and already have a Core i3/5/7 SB really isn't worth upgrading for performance wise. If you overclock and/or have an older system it should be quite an upgrade though. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Dec 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
If you do gaming/internet those extra 4 threads the i7 2600K gets you really aren't gonna do much for you. The i5 2500K would the the "sweet spot" price/performance wise of a decent number of cores (4 of em') and the high clock speed OC'ing will get you. Also there was a review posted on the previous page...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:I'm sure retail SBs definitely won't hit the overclocks achieved by the hand-picked ES chips. spasticColon posted:That's crazy they got that high an overclock out out of those chips but I have a feeling they were cherry-picked.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
Unless the chipset is the same I always do a fresh install no matter what when getting a new mobo. Trying to save the original install usually seems to be more trouble then its worth in the long run.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
incoherent posted:How are we regressing with reguards to PCIE slots PCIe 2.0 bandwidth is good enough so that you don't need more than 8 lanes so even the Crossfire/SLI users will be OK. Its if you want to use Crossfire/SLI _and_ a 4x or 8x PCIe RAID card _and_ PCIe x1 sound card or NIC that you end up screwed. Not many people do that sort of think though so the fine folks at Intel don't really care.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The LGA2011 variant this fall is going to have 40 or something lanes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 11:33
|
|
|
For stock the Intel boards are good, for OC'ing not so much. I'd go with either ASUS or Gigabyte for OC'ing. MSI is fine for stock but are mediocre OC'ers IME. Same goes for Asrock and Biostar, at least they're usually cheap though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2011 06:16
|
|
|
Looks like that tip was spot on. MC will have the i5 2500K for $180 in store on the 9th. Looks like their motherboard prices are about on par with the online stores' prices too. Already got my cheap 8GB of DDR3. I'll keep the rest of my system for now though since nothing I play is still stressing my GPU's too much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
Maybe not 5am, but before they open sure if you want to be certain you get parts on launch day.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 07:47
|
|
|
P67+OC'd i5 2500K+cheap GPU would be the best option for you IMO oversteer. If you're willing to put up with rebates you can get a card that is quite a bit better than the Intel IGP for about $35 here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2011 14:20
|
|
|
Shame AMD's CEO got booted. He seemed like he was doing a good job for the most part given the mess AMD was in when he took the job IIRC. Anyways looks like we're starting to see some leaks on BD's performance. Seems BD may be at least as fast as the fastest "old" i7's (980X). If that is true that means it'll be only around 10% slower on average than SB per clock which is quite respectable. If they can actually get the clock speed up and keep the TDP from getting out of hand they may even be able to clock it fast enough that it ends up faster than SB over all. Bear in mind current Phenom II quad core chips tend to OC around 3.8-4Ghz on air too. A clock speed at least on par with SB, either stock or overclocked, doesn't seem too far fetched unless AMD really screwed things up with their new process. It'd be pretty bad rear end if they sold a version of BD that performs about the same as SB and overclocks almost as well for less at launch. Kinda doubt that'll happen somehow. Here is some info. on the "new" 9xx chipset too. Mostly just a minor refresh of the 8xx chipset. Pretty disappointing when you consider the 8xx chipset was mostly just a minor refresh of the 7xx chipset. Intel did about the same with their 6x chipsets too it seems.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
Its true we don't know what numbers they're using or how they got them but it also isn't far fetched either. Remember, if Intel went from C2D to the Core ix chips and got a ~20% performance per clock improvement then you can't rule out AMD doing the same. And AMD's current clocks aren't all that bad, at stock or OC'd. Given that Intel's Turbo Boost only goes up to 4 bins higher max to something like 3.8Ghz and AMD can already get their Turbo Core up to 3.6Ghz on a worse process and older core I don't think Turbo Boost will be an advantage vs BD. AMD's big problem isn't really their design guys, although they have made missteps before. Its that they're always at least a year behind Intel's process and they're fab limited. Intel will have the upper hand again anyways at the end of the year even if they lose it mid year because of that. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Jan 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
Alcohol pads or alcohol and cotton balls work. If you want to do it real fast you can get a can of Xylene or Goof Off at Lowes/Home Depot. Just make sure you do it in a well ventilated area and wear gloves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 13:57
|
|
|
You only need the 2500K for gaming, not the 2600K. Realistically even the stock versions are good enough for most people right now so if you did switch to the 2600/2500 you'd be OK. You just couldn't overclock and get lots of "free" performance. CL and latency numbers hardly matter anymore. Mostly its just for benchmarkers these days. Same thing for the higher clocked DDR3. 1333Mhz stuff if all you need and its cheap right now too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
AFAIK you don't want to go over 1.5v for RAM with Sandy Bridge, but I can't remember where I saw that. Older chips were fine with 1.6v DDR3 but it makes sense that the new smaller process wouldn't be able to tolerate higher voltages, just like for vCore.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
Which HSF do you have? If its the weenie stock one then wow those temps really aren't that bad all things considered. Lil' more info. on BD performance. Still not much to go on but it does clarify the previous rumor a bit ("50% faster than i7 950, synthetically faster than the i7 980X"). If its really gonna come out in April it makes sense to start hearing a bit about its performance right about now though. I was gonna buy the i5 2500K but money problems had me holding off until at least the end of the month. Might just hold off until April now though. If nothing else P67 mobo's will be cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2011 11:55
|
|
|
The plastic pin HSF's are easy to pull off but can be a bitch to put back on without pulling out the motherboard first depending on the case and the position of the CPU socket. HSF retention mechanism is the one thing that AMD has over Intel right now, too bad its such a minor thing that only system builders and benchers will care.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
incoherent posted:And you can use GUID Partition Table instead of master boot records (you want this, really) e:\/\/\/\/\/I know older boards didn't do this, I think I started to notice it happening with the 8xx chipsets. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jan 17, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:I just looked this up... Thanks. \/\/\/\/\/e: I don't think that board is capable of it. Or at least ASUS and none of the reviews seem to say it. They do say the red USB/eSATA ports are designed for charging devices with higher energy requirements though. Have you tried plugging it into one of them and giving it a shot? PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Jan 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2011 07:44
|
|
|
They're sleep states you can configure in the BIOS/UEFI.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2011 14:00
|
|
|
This OC guide is pretty noob friendly but touches on lots of stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2011 00:50
|
|
|
Which mobo do you have and which software are you using to check CPU speed? I can't think of which setting would cause that, power saving maybe? I'm sure the UEFI is correct on your CPU, but you could always check the box again or use Intel's CPU ID tool if you really wanted.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2011 12:51
|
|
|
The Metal Avenger posted:"Problem" solved. I hate it when the "problem" is something stupid like that. Oh well, at least you got a reason to get a better CPU/mobo out of it. "Problems" like that can come in handy occasionally I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
Which card do you have now? Some can support more than 1 monitor.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Looks like Intel made a lil' booboo with the chipset guys. Supposedly the fix is coming out next quarter. The fix of course is a chipset redesign so you'd have to get a new mobo. What a PITA. This isn't nearly as bad as AMD's gently caress up with the original Phenom but its still bad enough. The official statement: posted:
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2011/01/31/intel-shares-halted-for-news/?mod=yahoobarrons
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
If I'm reading the Anandtech article correctly its not the number of SATA devices its the ports that matter. You can only use 2 devices and still get effected unfortunately.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 15:22
|
|