4770 vs 4770K?

[ShintaiDK]

In the old days it WAS much better.

Intel without competition is not good for the market. We have evidence, this isn't the first time it happened. The Pentium 1 era. The pre-K7 P2 era. And now.

Each time Intel tightened the reins, and the market stagnated..

I will say though, I don't think I saw that program at the time. Pretty neat.

The old days was terrible. Poor quality products as well from all sides. And poor is a very underwhelimg word to describe it.

Intel got plenty of competition. Its called Intel and ARM.

Never in the history have we had cheaper CPUs, bigger R&D budgets, bigger CAPEX.

Maybe you confuse Intel with AMD. You know the company that delayed 65nm, delayed development projects and rode the glory at crazy high prices when it was in front.

 

[TerryMathews]

The old days was terrible. Poor quality products as well. And poor is a very underwhelimg word to describe it.

Intel got plenty of competition. Its called Intel and ARM.

Never in the history have we had cheaper CPUs, bigger R&D budgets, bigger CAPEX.

Yes, the cores are more technically advanced now than they were then.

Could you imagine if we were free to play with them like we could with P4s and Athlons? Without all these artifical restrictions?

In the P4 era, once HyperThreading was brought into the line, there was only one chip released that I recall that did not have that feature. How many Intel chips today have features artificially limited to segment the market for revenue purposes?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yes, the cores are more technically advanced now than they were then.

Could you imagine if we were free to play with them like we could with P4s and Athlons? Without all these artifical restrictions?

Like with the K or X models?

 

[TerryMathews]

Like with the K models?

Yeah. Because I should have to pay a premium for that.

Which was the point of this thread if you recall.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yeah. Because I should have to pay a premium for that.

Which was the point of this thread if you recall.

Why didnt K7s ship unlocked? K8s too? Why did we have to pay a premium for FX chips back then?

Why dont they just sell 1 CPU?

Its all easily answered if you wish to understand why.

 

[Idontcare]

If they were "enthusiast friendly", why were you modding your chip? It should have come with an unlocked multiplier.

Because AMD chips in that generation weren't using electronic multiplier configuration, they were using physical?

Come on this isn't rocket science. They borrowed from the DEC Alpha which also had physical multipliers and not electronic.

DominionSeraph's point still stands. The only reason I was able to overclock my 800MHz K7 was because some dude in Idaho figured out how to craft a GFD (gold-finger device) in his garage and decided to sell them for $20 a pop.

Regardless how or why a GFD was needed, it was not AMD's intentions that their K7's be overclocked because they did not provide a GFD nor did they provide any technical assistance for the GFD's creation (I know because I talked with the guy in Idaho at the time).

That we could overclock out K7's as enthusiasts was a reality only because people hacked the AMD situation to enable it. And AMD didn't waste time either, as soon as they could get away from the slot-A based chips they also engineered-away the possibility of OC'ing with a GFD.

That's when it once it fell back to the enthusiasts to figure out a hack using rear-windshield defogger repair kits.

AMD was no friend of the enthusiast "back in the day".

Inteltards gonna tard? /DS

C'mon, that is simply unwarranted and well beneath these forums. If you can't conduct yourself with a modicum of decorum then we'll gladly show you the door.

 

[TerryMathews]

DominionSeraph's point still stands. The only reason I was able to overclock my 800MHz K7 was because some dude in Idaho figured out how to craft a GFD (gold-finger device) in his garage and decided to sell them for $20 a pop.

Regardless how or why a GFD was needed, it was not AMD's intentions that their K7's be overclocked because they did not provide a GFD nor did they provide any technical assistance for the GFD's creation (I know because I talked with the guy in Idaho at the time).

That we could overclock out K7's as enthusiasts was a reality only because people hacked the AMD situation to enable it. And AMD didn't waste time either, as soon as they could get away from the slot-A based chips they also engineered-away the possibility of OC'ing with a GFD.

That's when it once it fell back to the enthusiasts to figure out a hack using rear-windshield defogger repair kits.

AMD was no friend of the enthusiast "back in the day".



C'mon, that is simply unwarranted and well beneath these forums. If you can't conduct yourself with a modicum of decorum then we'll gladly show you the door.

Again, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I don't remember AMD price binning away features like Intel does now.

Regarding DS, I debated with ShintaiDK respectfully correct? And you as well. That is DS's classic line, hence the /DS at the end. It could almost be a Reddit advice animal.

 

[piasabird]

Just put MSATA/Mini PCIE on the motheboard. If it is good for Mini-ITX, why not MATX or ATX?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Again, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I don't remember AMD price binning away features like Intel does now.

Maybe you should go tech the history then. Because your memory is flawed.

Sure, they didnt bin the same features as today, simply because they didnt exist. But they did bin on cache, locked/unlocked multiplier, MP functionality and so on.

 

[Idontcare]

Again, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I don't remember AMD price binning away features like Intel does now.

I don't get how you can say that when we just went through a period spanning years in which AMD price-binned away entire cores in their lineup only to then find out we could special mobos that could unlock those cores if we wanted.

Did the entire "unlock your X3 to get an X4" situation escape your memory or attention? Those weren't harvested X3's from bad X4's, they were fully functional X4's that were binned down and intentionally sold as lower-priced X3's because that was were the demand was at and AMD kept the X4's at a higher price-premium (you paid for the feature if you wanted the feature).

Go back even further, you paid more for a K6-III with the added feature of an on-die L2$ than you paid for a K6-2. You paid for the feature if you wanted the feature.

 

[Pilum]

Did the entire "unlock your X3 to get an X4" situation escape your memory or attention? Those weren't harvested X3's from bad X4's, they were fully functional X4's that were binned down and intentionally sold as lower-priced X3's because that was were the demand was at and AMD kept the X4's at a higher price-premium (you paid for the feature if you wanted the feature).

One might add that AMD does not allow this anymore on BD/PD CPUs; while the FX-4/6 series all come from 8-core dies, it is not possible to unlock them to a higher bin. If AMD was truly enthusiast-friendly, the core unlocking would still work on these modern CPUs.

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't get how you can say that when we just went through a period spanning years in which AMD price-binned away entire cores in their lineup only to then find out we could special mobos that could unlock those cores if we wanted.

Did the entire "unlock your X3 to get an X4" situation escape your memory or attention? Those weren't harvested X3's from bad X4's, they were fully functional X4's that were binned down and intentionally sold as lower-priced X3's because that was were the demand was at and AMD kept the X4's at a higher price-premium (you paid for the feature if you wanted the feature).

Go back even further, you paid more for a K6-III with the added feature of an on-die L2$ than you paid for a K6-2. You paid for the feature if you wanted the feature.

In fairness I sat that generation out. I didn't know about the hidden cores.

And the fact that AMD participated in the same shenanigans reinforces my point, it doesn't negate it. My point is that when they were fighting tooth and nail we got a better deal from both vendors. Both Intel and AMD.

For all intents and purposes they aren't competing anymore. Only in specific subsets of the market. And the features and pricing that Intel is pushing out reflects that.

Your analogy with the K6 falls apart in that the dies were different. AMD didn't fuse off the extra L3, it wasn't there.

 

[ShintaiDK]

In fairness I sat that generation out. I didn't know about the hidden cores.

And the fact that AMD participated in the same shenanigans reinforces my point, it doesn't negate it. My point is that when they were fighting tooth and nail we got a better deal from both vendors. Both Intel and AMD.

For all intents and purposes they aren't competing anymore. Only in specific subsets of the market. And the features and pricing that Intel is pushing out reflects that.

Your analogy with the K6 falls apart in that the dies were different. AMD didn't fuse off the extra L3, it wasn't there.

But we didnt. So I dont understand your claim.

 

[sm625]

Those weren't harvested X3's from bad X4's, they were fully functional X4's that were binned down and intentionally sold as lower-priced X3's because that was were the demand was at and AMD kept the X4's at a higher price-premium (you paid for the feature if you wanted the feature).

There have been many X3s that did not properly unlock into a fully functional X4.

 

[Idontcare]

There have been many X3s that did not properly unlock into a fully functional X4.

Relevance to the conversation?

There were many vendors who did not participate in Intel's questionable rebate policy, does that mean no one is allowed to call a spade a spade and discuss the rebate policy and its effects on those who did partipicate?

 

[Idontcare]

Your analogy with the K6 falls apart in that the dies were different. AMD didn't fuse off the extra L3, it wasn't there.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a point. The point being AMD, the same as Intel, has always tiered their products by price based on features.

That Intel does it by fusing off features to create different products or that AMD does it by creating discrete and different IC's is irrelevant to the consumer who must pay for specific features if they want them.

Neither vendor operates differently in this regard, not now and not ever. It has nothing to do with competition, the entire industry operates this way. Look at video cards, look at ram, look at SSDs (controller chips as well as the NAND flash itself). You want a feature you pay for the feature.

 

[Atreidin]

It kind of blows, though, that you pay more for a "K" version and have certain features removed. Sure there are advantages over non-K, otherwise it wouldn't exist. But when you have two nearly identical products, with nearly identical model numbers, and one is significantly more expensive but adds some kind of suffix to indicate its premium status, that it would have everything the cheaper model has, and more. It just "feels" kind of wrong, like if I bought the version of a car with a better engine than the stock model that added a couple grand to the cost, but for some reason its missing cupholders, a spare tire, a 12v power plug, and other random features. It isn't the best analogy, but I hope you get my point. It feels like the company is screwing with you just for the hell of it.

 

[guskline]

Let's wait till they are released to see what effect the 4770 vs 4770k really has. I don't buy into the "Intel or AMD is screwing us" malarky.

Unlike taxes and death :ninja:, we are not forced to buy a cpu :biggrin:.

 

[ElFenix]

If Intel is bringing back BCLK overclocking, do we need a K chip? For example, my i7 860 OC's better than my 875k, and it's older.

has intel said BCLK overclocking will be allowed on non-K chips?

 

[cytg111]

So, with a 4770, if it has BLCK OCing, TSX and IGP, should I look at that rather than a 4770k?

That IS the question is it not..
We will have to wait for the reviews I'm afraid, and in-depth ones at that .. how much will TSX for example benefit your workloads? And will the potential extra OC headroom of the K chip offset that? Must admit was/is kinda downed by the omission of TSX, from the K line (can live without the vt-d though woulda been nice, and screw the others).

As gaming is getting threaded .. will TSX help to ease out some extra fps? Reviews reviews reviews ...

 

[ShintaiDK]

TSX only helps with active shared data threads. I doubt gaming uses that.

Also TSX is divided into 2 parts HLE and RTM. HLE is backwards compatible with non TSX CPUs, but slower. RTM the opposite.

 

[cytg111]

I may be way off, but I imagine that the opposite could be quite true.
Game code have uptil now been inherently serial in nature and breaking such a construct up into compartmented processes I imagine that you're going to need some heavy synchronization (could also explain why some ppl are seeing 60-70% active cores across the board and none maxed out, yet clock increase yields more fps..)
Again .. guesswork.
Reviews reviews reviews ...

 

[ShintaiDK]

I may be way off, but I imagine that the opposite could be quite true.
Game code have uptil now been inherently serial in nature and breaking such a construct up into compartmented processes I imagine that you're going to need some heavy synchronization (could also explain why some ppl are seeing 60-70% active cores across the board and none maxed out, yet clock increase yields more fps..)
Again .. guesswork.
Reviews reviews reviews ...

TSX will not help anything on serial code.

From the horse itself:

Intel TSX Applicability

Intel TSX targets a certain class of shared-memory multi-threaded applications; specifically multi-threaded applications that actively share data. Intel TSX is about allowing programs to achieve fine-grain lock performance without requiring the complexity of reasoning about fine-grain locking.

However, if there is high data contention the algorithm would need to change in order to have an opportunity for high scalability. There are no magic bullets that can solve the problem, since true high data contention implies that the algorithm is effectively serialized.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

It wasn't an analogy, it was a point. The point being AMD, the same as Intel, has always tiered their products by price based on features.

I guess his point was that, while AMD does tier by price, you generally get a better product (more cores, more MHz, etc.) for the increased price tag.

It's a wash with Intel - we get a product that is both superior (unlocked multi), yet inferior (gimped features) at the same time, like a hot chick with a weird laugh

 

[cytg111]

TSX will not help anything on serial code.

From the horse itself:

- Yea I know, was a different point I was trying to make, that parallelizing code that is seriel in nature will most likely need heavy synchronization(or data sharing).