• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intel's "Black Edition" Finally Here

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I love how people pretend to hate Intel because they dont offer budget unlocked processors...when they forget that you dont NEED one.

I took my ~$270 Q9450 above the speeds of a $1500 QX9770.

My 4.3 E8600 will still out-perform any stock i7 in programs that cant take advantage of more than 2 cores/threads...

Personally I blame software developers for this, but that's just me.
 
OCGuy said:
I love how people pretend to hate Intel because they dont offer budget unlocked processors...when they forget that you dont NEED one.

I took my ~$270 Q9450 above the speeds of a $1500 QX9770.

My 4.3 E8600 will still out-perform any stock i7 in programs that cant take advantage of more than 2 cores/threads...

Personally I blame software developers for this, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

maybe you beat the QX9770s stock speeds, but the Q9450 regularly failed to achieve maximum clocks that the Q6600 was capable of, all because of its dreadfully low multiplier and the inability of the motherboard chipsets to handle the stress of super high FSBs required to get to 4GHz or even 3.6GHz for the most part, particularly with more than two sticks of ram.

An unlocked Q9450 would have been THE most amazing overall chip to hit the market in the past 10 years, instead it was just decent, nothing spectacular.
 
bunnyfubbles said:
maybe you beat the QX9770s stock speeds, but the Q9450 regularly failed to achieve maximum clocks that the Q6600 was capable of, all because of its dreadfully low multiplier and the inability of the motherboard chipsets to handle the stress of super high FSBs required to get to 4GHz or even 3.6GHz for the most part, particularly with more than two sticks of ram.

An unlocked Q9450 would have been THE most amazing overall chip to hit the market in the past 10 years, instead it was just decent, nothing spectacular.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even the Q9550 had a hard time to run stable beyond 3.60GHz, and the Q9650 was too expensive to justify a mere 166MHz boost in performance. I think that if AMD was in the current position that it is now in the times of the Core 2 era, Intel would had be pressed to make more Q6600 type of CPU's and better than Nehalem performance in the next generation of processors. At least thanks to the somewhat AMD's slight massage/pressure with Thuban, Intel is doing a bit better now.
 
Kenmitch said:
I thought the initial reports on the 875k was kinda a overclocking dog wasn't it? Maybe these are low binned chips without a multiplier lock just to make the temptation to purchase one greater 🙂
Click to expand...

Probably not too much voltage binning going on. These are still on the hella mature 45nm process, where yield has got to be nearing 100% and there's no real need to die harvest/voltage bin anymore
 
ROFL they gave u guys a 975 @ 342 dollars on the i7 875?

Im saying a 975 because its both unlocked... and seeing how u guys were originally crippled on a low VTT, now with a unlocked multi you wont have that VTT problems at a lower QPI.

Uhh.. not to sound like an Intel Fanboy now.. but.. AMD is in trouble.

An unlocked i7 cpu for LGA1156 @ 342 in the hands of a modest overclocker, would make an INSANE gaming machine.. or production machine.
 
Soleron said:
That's not lack of competition, that's normal bulk discounts. If Intel were imposing extra conditions on Dell in exchange for the low price (like not buying more than a certain number of AMD chips) then that would be illegal. But discounting for volume is perfectly normal and makes economic sense.
Click to expand...


Werent they doing just that about 10 years ago? Actually worse than that, Dell couldnt sell any AMD systems if they wanted Intel's best discounts. Then they got in trouble and did away with that.
 
aj654987 said:
Werent they doing just that about 10 years ago? Actually worse than that, Dell couldnt sell any AMD systems if they wanted Intel's best discounts. Then they got in trouble and did away with that.
Click to expand...

intel paid amd to say they dont remember... :sneaky:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top