No OCing on certain Nehalems??

[bryanW1995]

i had the link posted in my profile when I set it up as a new member. I didn't realize that we had that type of person here. now, at psychoexgirlfriend.com I could see something like this happening, but here?

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
tutelary and bryanW1995

I ask you guys to step back, take a deep breathe before you guys post anything else to each other.

The next time a mod writes something to you guys, its gonna be mark.

And this isnt a flame war or pissing contest. We dont know for sure 100% if they can'd overclocking or not.

Most likely they didn't because they would kill all the other board manufactors.


Anyhow lets continue in a civilized manner, so mark doesnt have to bust out the locking stick!

Thanks Aigo !

To tutelary and bryanW1995 , I see a little friction, but we aren't unreasonable. Please just don't go over the line.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: tutelary
Going to call *very likely* on this as it is complimentary to what they are already planning: Tiers of motherboards/processors for different 'levels' of consumer.

Most people here probably have too much processor for their needs anyway, and I'm going to stick with that regardless of how much it gets me flamed. Let's be realistic here: running a game on a 30inch lcd at full res isn't a 'need' either. Aside from the occasional professional/real power user I'm willing to bet anyone here with a quad could skip the next round of cpus and never notice outside the outrageously expensive gaming scene.

In short, I think Intel is going to catch all kinds of flack for what is really just a sound business strategy.

I for one will miss any cpu that doesn't help me with my goal, F@H power. And there are a lot of people that like 30 in LCD's and games, and business powers users, etc...

Saying you don't care how much you gets flamed is an invitation. Please don't go there....

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Overclocking is a hobby. If we can't get this from Intel then we'll have to get it from AMD or perhaps someone here on Anandtech will go on to have their own line of OC'able chips

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I build a new rig every 18mos to 2yrs because I want a new toy to play with not because I need the computing power. Hell my old A64 3200+ would still handle most of the tasks I do just fine.

My A64 x2 3800+ was still fine after two years, but by then I was soooo itching to upgrade... I probably would still be fine with that and the passive 7900GS...

Originally posted by: aigomorla
You know in the business financial world, they recomend replacing OEM computers every 1 to 1.5yrs.

Not because of functionality, but for reliability.

Don't know about the "business financial world," but I'm familiar with various small businesses and one larger business. The larger business actually did have a refresh cycle for their computers, but it was more like 3-4 years. Basically they were a Dell shop, and didn't cycle out anything that was still under the 3 year warranty. Once warranty was up, then it was put into the following year's budget. Maybe it didn't work exactly like that, but they did follow a 3-4 year cycle. Things got replaced before then if they broke (usually with same/similar). Things got replaced by then even if they worked fine.

As for small businesses, hell, some of them use 'em until they crumble into dust.

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
up to the third party mobo manufacturers to find a way around it.

Blasts from the past:
Intel 925X: Exploring the Overclock Lock
Breaking Intel's Overclock Lock: The REAL Story

Originally posted by: tutelary
I can't even begin to understand the concept of replacing a machine 2 or 3 times a year.

I can. It is basically one of desire and budget. If you have the budget and have the desire, then why not? If you lack one or the other (or both) then you don't have to.

It's like eating out. I know people who almost never cook and are always eating out. I know others who hardly eat out. If you can afford it and want to, why not? If you don't want to or can't afford it, then you don't have to.

Originally posted by: tutelary
Being a computing enthusiast doesn't mean you have to be an idiot with your money.

Of course not. However, spending money doesn't mean you're an idiot with it. Here's something that a friend of mine and I both do. We upgrade frequently. We also sell off our old parts (mostly locally). We both are Hot Deal shoppers and because we upgrade so quickly we are often able to sell our old parts for not much less than what we paid for them. In a couple instances we've actually profited (just because of our low initial cost). How is this being an "idiot with your money?" We typically make back 80% of what we put into it, after about a half year. That's probably comparible with, say, if we kept and used it for 3 years. How much is a 3 year old video card worth? My $300 7900GT is probably worth around $50 now.

If you resell your used components, I believe that it doesn't cost that much more to upgrade frequently as it does to upgrade seldomly.

Originally posted by: v8envy
Computing is a dirt cheap hobby. If you have any other hobbies I could throw just as many stones at them as a 'waste of money'

How true! A friend of mine is into RC planes. A single flight can cost a couple hundred if you "land" it wrong. Someone at another forums is getting some work done on his car... "enthusiast" work... started with a $30k car and put in another $15k of work. Wow, that's an expensive hobby. How about a $6 million home theater?

I think my couple hundred per month (offset by a couple hundred per month selling off old parts) makes for a fairly budget hobby.

But that's just me.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: Zap
[
How true! A friend of mine is into RC planes. A single flight can cost a couple hundred if you "land" it wrong. Someone at another forums is getting some work done on his car... "enthusiast" work... started with a $30k car and put in another $15k of work. Wow, that's an expensive hobby. How about a $6 million home theater?

I think my couple hundred per month (offset by a couple hundred per month selling off old parts) makes for a fairly budget hobby.

But that's just me.

Oh god yes. I've been far more enthusiastic about my computer hobby after my wife put me on a strict $300/month entertainment budget. That's 2 months of nothing else just to get a set of tires, for those keeping score. A weekend at the racetrack? I'm doing nothing but watching web videos for 3 months, and that's *IF* I don't break anything major. I had to donate my old Bronco to NPR because I couldn't possibly do anything fun with it on such a tiny budget, and my stang has been parked since last November. :brokenheart:

A 3 way 9800GTX rig with a QX9770 every 2 years is dirt cheap compared to any mainstream hobby. Except possibly fly fishing -- my dad actually makes $ making flies for other fishermen which pays for the gas & parts on the 4x4 he uses to get to the fish. Labor is free -- he just guilts me into fixing it.

 

[aigomorla]

@ Zap, your right i said it was recomended, not required. You replace only when you feel you need to, not because someone tells you that you have to.

I go though too many computers in 1 year. Im an odd ball case, but so is mark, i guess thats why were friends.

@ hobbies, yes my friend is a bit more extreme. He's in a show and racing crew. He fixed up his IS300 and probably invested another 100k in parts. Yes im serious on that amount. But its gotten him places in shows and even a place in a need for speed video game. That "IS" you see in that game is his.

Also, if you own a business or corporation, computers is considered a "business expense" which means you either upgrade and tax deduct it, or give it to uncle sam and have our politicians blow it, when you file taxes. So you take your pick. :T

[ask your CPA for more info regarding the deduction]

Anyhow back on topic!

So the looks of things, your gonna need to go skulltrail class to overclock on neha.

This is too funny, but as yoxxy said, give the motherboard companies some time to hack it. I always learned, no matter how smart you think you are, someone smarter has been born and will be born every day for the rest of your life.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: v8envy
Intel has never 'supported' overclocking. Just look at their boards. It's up to the usual suspects selling mainboards to figure out how to best OC Intel's products and then charge us a premium for the privilege.

They were pretty enthusiastic about it when they were just coming out of the P4 slump with their C2 line. Didn't they set up some OCing event where Kingpin or Fugger or one of those guys pushed their X6800 CPUs with LN2 when they 1st came out?

Lol now that they are ahead they don't give a damn about the enthusiasts.

And now that I think about it...once AMD went down their Black Edition CPUs were just as cheap as their regular ones.

Conclusion: each company only wants the enthusiasts when they're sucking.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Well if software starts this then what's the point?

Symantec sux, and their software is bloated crap. I sh*tcanned their virus protection many moons ago. They are the BEST at taking a fast PC and turing into a sludge-ridden poky mess.

Originally posted by: v8envy
For stuff you do, sure. There were two things I've come across re: Nehalem that tell me I'm probably getting one whether or not I can OC the bad boy. The biggest reason is SSE will have instructions for *string manipulation*, ostensibly to speed up XML processing.

If they get this right it'll be HUGE and will only take a very minor compiler tweak to make everything from the OS kernel to every app on the system take a giant performance leap. Everything from Java to network transfers to Oracle client calls are going to get faster. This is where I believe the claims of 100% performance gain over core2 are coming from.

String primitives (e.g., strncpy and friends) in OS libraries are on the order of 300 instructions with several pushes of registers to main RAM. Feel free to disassemble one if you don't believe me -- and these calls get executed hundreds of millions of times a day.<orgasm>If I can replace a function call (or nasty inline equivalent) with a single CPU instruction... And if it's atomic and doesn't require concurrency control...</orgasm>

That is a very strong point. I work in a space (Intrusion Detection and signature-based packet analysis) and our libraries are in XML. We currently use a 16-core CPU from a boutique semi outfit to drive the analysis, but it STILL isn't enough. Coupled with all the Web 2.0 applications that use XML, Ruby, JS and the like, that could result in some huge gains in many key areas that currently underperform on even the fastest machines, namely Aigomorla's and Yoxxy's.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: v8envy
Now take the same graph, and go from 1970 until today. You'll see that outside the dotcom and y2k insanity of 1998-2001 we're about as low on the unemployment curve as we've been in many decades. 5% is what the department of labor considers 'full employment' and going below 4 is seen as highly inflationary and in fact a bad thing.

Now, the trend UP in unemployment is definitely there. The magnitude of the trend is not as large as 01-04 though. Overall I don't think you can read trouble into that graph -- yet.

and:

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
<snip>
...The economy isn't growing like it has been for the past 7 years, but it is still going unbelievably well. unemployment is still at historically low levels, and unless you're trying to sell or refinance a home you're probably not hurting for money right now.

[soapbox]

Now, I don't want to threadjack, but since this seems to be a topic anyway... the current unemployment rate reports have been manipulated for the last 40 years to give less inflammatory numbers, just like the CPI. I like to think of the Dept. of Labor's unemployment rate to be the unemployment measurement after the unemployment is subtracted. Kevin Phillips has just published a very serious and throughly researched article in Harper's on the history of statistical manipulation by the government. Hint: it started with Kennedy.)

Um, a stunning 7% Produce Price Index increase in the last quarter (as opposed to the 2% CPI, which is the inflation rate AFTER all the inflation has been taken out); food riots across the world; a cratering national housing market with no signs of a bottom, the new home side of which has declined a stunning 66% in a year; $200B+ so far in writedowns in the financial industry alone; a $3T-dollar war with no end in sight, fought entirely on borrowed money, off the government books; a near meltdown in the banking industry last month; millions of foreclosures; $120 oil, a cratering dollar - and the economy is going "unbelievably well?" I know grass isn't growing in the streets yet, but let's not be willfully blind, shall we?

We can only hope that we as a country won't start paying more dearly for our recklessness on so many levels.

This is definitely the wrong forum for this topic. :sun:

[/soapbox]

 

[Nemesis 1]

Just to add to the above offtopic. Look at how the US government is hiding the inflation numbers from the public. Food has gone up dramaticly . Gas is crazy. Why do these guys hide the real inflation numbers. PAY RAISES. Government SS. and the private sector. Its all about screwing us.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Just to add to the above offtopic. Look at how the US government is hiding the inflation numbers from the public. Food has gone up dramaticly . Gas is crazy. Why do these guys hide the real inflation numbers. PAY RAISES. Government SS. and the private sector. Its all about screwing us.

That was Clinton who monkeyed with the US government's definition of CPI (consumer price index) in the nineties...much to the chagrin of economists then and now.

As to the theory it is being done to screw "us"...just remember it is "us" who pay for the entitlements...so you are really looking at your employed daughter and saying "stop being so damned greedy, spend less on shoes and food for my grandchildren and give me more social entitlements!".

 

[Cogman]

April FoolS! What the heck. Its like the article is say "Intel has supported Overclocking up until now, but now they are going against it!" No, Intel has never supported Overclocking, if that was true then they would invalidate all warentees when you overclock.

Maybe they won't include overclocking features on newer motherboards, but I have a hard time seeing how they will stop a FSB modification, it isn't as simple as locking a multiplier because the FSB is variable regardless (IE 333 FSB doesn't always run at 333 but 330 to 336 ect)

 

[Jax Omen]

Except Nehalem doesn't use FSB anymore.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Intel has never supported Overclocking

Not quite true. A couple of known extreme overclockers have been paid by Intel to put on some public demonstrations now and again. I'd say that was "supporting" overclocking, if only for a day here and there. Well, at least for Extreme Edition processors, which is what those demonstrations used.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
That was Clinton who monkeyed with the US government's definition of CPI (consumer price index) in the nineties...much to the chagrin of economists then and now.

Agree. Clinton did a lot of fscked up stuff during his time in office. It's one big reason why I REALLY don't want ANOTHER one.

Originally posted by: Jax Omen
Except Nehalem doesn't use FSB anymore.

Back on topic. Apologies. One thing we DO know for sure, it will a be a completely new architecture for Intel, and the immediate effects will be unpredictable.

I remember when the 1.4/1.5 GHz P4's came out and my 1 GHz P3 outperformed them. We all have sweet-running systems now thanks to Intel (and thanks to AMD for pushing them to improve quality. Heck, even Apple defected to them, and it was the best move they've ever made.) For all we know, Nehalem might underperform expectations. Another thing's almost certain: who the heck is gonna be able to use 8-16 cores???? (I mean, other than Aigo or Markfw, they don't count ) It'll probably take a long time for the mobo guys to get on top of it. The software is so far behind it's calamitous.

Others have noted: prices very likely will go up, for both mobos and CPUs. So I plan to get a cheap quad fairly soon, probably a q6700. I don't need 8 cores to run FrameMaker and Illustrator, or Blu-Ray movies.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: Jax Omen
Except Nehalem doesn't use FSB anymore.

One thing we DO know for sure, it will a be a completely new architecture for Intel, and the immediate effects will be unpredictable.

I sorely missed out on the whole scene when AMD released their chips with the IMC and HT. (money wasn't as forthcoming to me back then)

BUT...how could overclocking a Nehalem become any more or less difficult than it is to overclock an X2 or X3 or Phenom (minus the special AMD software obviously)?

It's not like AMD put an end to overclocking their chips when they moved off the FSB...and I don't see Intel putting any more extra special effort into it than AMD did.

I do agree however that just as the low-multi Penryns nowadays put a crimp on the heights of FSB-enabled overclocking (i.e. margin in the NB is the limitation) that the early Nehalem mobos may just simply have so little margin in their ancillary components that overclocking them (in order to overclock the Nehalem chip) becomes impractical for the first gen or two.