Not all SB CPUs support AVX? Why does Intel do this?

[VirtualLarry]

It would seem to prevent software ISVs from adopting these new ISA extensions, if Intel isn't willing to make them ubiquitous throughout their CPU lineups.

I just recently purchase a Gateway slimline PC (For $200+tax AC), and it has a Pentium G630 2.7Ghz CPU in it. And according to CPU-Z, it doesn't show AVX is supported.

I mean, this isn't even a Celeron, it's a Pentium. They are crippling Pentium chips now too?

 

[Yuriman]

I wasn't aware of this, interesting.

It appears only "i" series chips get AVX, and Celerons and Pentiums (Sandy and Ivy) lack these instructions.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Pentium chips have been crippled for many generations now. They also dont have AES, Turbo or HT. And max memory supported is 1066, not 1333. On the other hand the MSRP is 64$.

Its one of those things about capitalism. You can choose what you need and pay for it.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Its one of those things about capitalism. You can choose what you need and pay for it.

I would not say they are "crippled" in that sense, it just depends on what you use them for. They are actually pretty decent (not to mention -cheap-, both cost and power consumption wise) as bog standard office PC's for workers who don't need something fancy with all the bells and whistles...

 

[VirtualLarry]

Btw, CPU-Z reads this for my G630:

Family: 6 Model: A Stepping: 7
Ext. Family: 6 Ext. Model: 2A Revision: D2

They are already up to revision D2? Was this the initial release revision for the SB Pentiums? Or was there a stepping in-between that we didn't hear about?

 

[ShintaiDK]

D2 is the release version. Same for the rest of SB.

 

[Ken g6]

The nice thing about socket 1155 is that all Sandy Bridge chips fit in all boards. So you could definitely replace that chip with an i3-2120, and probably with an i5 or i7 if the power supply and cooling are sufficient. Sadly, Ivy Bridge chips probably won't work.

I agree it's stupid that AVX isn't included, but it's probably not a big deal for most applications. If Haswell Pentiums don't have AVX2, though, that will be a bigger problem. (Like not having SSE2, it could break many applications in the future.)

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Pentium chips have been crippled for many generations now. They also dont have AES, Turbo or HT. And max memory supported is 1066, not 1333. On the other hand the MSRP is 64$.

Its one of those things about capitalism. You can choose what you need and pay for it.

Actually the reason they don't offer it is because they have no decent competition from AMD so they are essentially operating as if they are a monopoly. Which they pretty much are at this point, nobody can compete with them.

There isn't any reason to disable these features, and if AMD put up a good fight you would bet they would be enabled.

Same thing with overclocking on Intel processors, if AMD could compete you could bet that all Intel processors would be overclockable. Monopolies just allow corporations to do as they please at the expense of any customer.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Actually the reason they don't offer it is because they have no decent competition from AMD so they are essentially operating as if they are a monopoly. Which they pretty much are at this point, nobody can compete with them.

There isn't any reason to disable these features, and if AMD put up a good fight you would bet they would be enabled.

Same thing with overclocking on Intel processors, if AMD could compete you could bet that all Intel processors would be overclockable. Monopolies just allow corporations to do as they please at the expense of any customer.

Wrong and utter nonsenses.

Its about marketsegmentation. You should look at Intel CPUs in the K8 era before Core 2. And you would know it got nothing to do with competition. Or look at Atoms that sure got competition from Bobcat and ARM. Yet features are still disabled on different SKU. Or why AMD disables good cores on CPUs to sell them as X2 or X3. Or GPUs? Do I even have to go there as well? Chipsets?

Everything cost, its just a matter of what you are willing to pay for.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Wrong and utter nonsenses.

Its about marketsegmentation.

No, he's 100% right. The only way that that type of market segmentation works, in the real, world, is if you have a near-monopoly on the market, and no competition.

 

[Elixer]

Intel does it, since they can get away with it, since, as has been mentioned there really isn't very robust competition going on here.
While pretty much all AMD chips don't skimp on features, most people don't seem to take that into account when they buy CPUs, and only go by what is fastest (or perhaps cheapest, depending on what they are doing)

 

[blckgrffn]

Intel is ridiculously scatter shot on their ISA stuff. You need to pay attention when buying their CPUs.

For a long time it was VT support, now that has made into most, if not all, of their CPUs.

AMD included basic VT in nearly everything that was 64-bit in the modern (AM2) era.

If its market segmentation, you'd think it would make more sense. All the lack of VT seemed to do was piss off folks who bought a new machine and couldn't run 64-bit vms, made it easy to say "with AMD you wouldn't have that problem..."

How many higher SKU CPUs could that have possibly moved?

People care about (and will pay for) core count and core speeds. Intel is shooting their own foot by not making their ISA work ubiquitous, IMHO.

 

[Idontcare]

People care about (and will pay for) core count and core speeds. Intel is shooting their own foot by not making their ISA work ubiquitous, IMHO.

They are fragmenting the bejesus out of their ISA with their inconsistent ISA implementations across the Atom, Xeon Phi, and "mainstream" x86 products.

IMO this is exactly the sort of internal confliction that arose with the P4 (wasn't to be 64bit, wasn't to use DDR2, etc) that in the end opened the door of opportunity for AMD 10yrs ago. I think their short-term memories are leading towards a dejavu situation.

 

[moonbogg]

Kinda wish my 3930K had it, but oh well. I guess the extra two cores evens things out? But even is wrong for a high end chip. It should be totally unfair in all scenarios.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Kinda wish my 3930K had it, but oh well. I guess the extra two cores evens things out? But even is wrong for a high end chip. It should be totally unfair in all scenarios.

What is your 3930K missing again?

 

[nismotigerwvu]

They are fragmenting the bejesus out of their ISA with their inconsistent ISA implementations across the Atom, Xeon Phi, and "mainstream" x86 products.

IMO this is exactly the sort of internal confliction that arose with the P4 (wasn't to be 64bit, wasn't to use DDR2, etc) that in the end opened the door of opportunity for AMD 10yrs ago. I think their short-term memories are leading towards a dejavu situation.

Agreed 100%.

Intel is completely free to do these sort of things but that in no way makes doing a remotely good idea. While the visualization support is quite randomized, at least the target demographic knows what to look for there and to this point the mainstream consumer hasn't really hurt from it. Not to mention that it hasn't hurt Intel in those markets that require the support. With AVX it seems like a different story. If Intel wants widespread support (and more importantly full adoption) they really need to make sure they have support across the board. Developers code to the least common denominator and if that's "doesn't support AVX" then in most cases it will be an afterthought when it's used, rather than optimized for from the start (see the current effects of consoles on PC gaming). I guess marketing is making the engineering decisions again.....

 

[NTMBK]

They are fragmenting the bejesus out of their ISA with their inconsistent ISA implementations across the Atom, Xeon Phi, and "mainstream" x86 products.

It's one more reason to be sceptical of the real world impact AVX2 will have for a long time to come. Intel shift a lot of those low end chips. If developers know that even among processors of the right generation a lot of them don't support an ISA, they won't bother implementing it.

 

[Smartazz]

Intel is shooting themselves in the foot. How do they expect these features to become widely used when a lot of people buy lower end chips. How many consumers see the features and decide which chip to get? I would think more often than not people decide on speed(GHz) and price.

 

[Edrick]

It's one more reason to be sceptical of the real world impact AVX2 will have for a long time to come. Intel shift a lot of those low end chips. If developers know that even among processors of the right generation a lot of them don't support an ISA, they won't bother implementing it.

Lets wait and see if Intel only intruduces AVX2 on high end chips before we start making those grand assumptions.

 

[blckgrffn]

What is your 3930K missing again?

Likely functioning VT-D. Which isn't useful until it is

Finally had a personal scenario where it mattered - passthrough of a USB controller so an external USB modem would work for a POTS fax server. Regular USB passthrough didn't cut.

Still niche, but there it is.

Yes, IDC, that is what I was trying to say, I agree with you. Clarity in communication and all that...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Likely functioning VT-D. Which isn't useful until it is

Finally had a personal scenario where it mattered - passthrough of a USB controller so an external USB modem would work for a POTS fax server. Regular USB passthrough didn't cut.

Still niche, but there it is.

Yes, IDC, that is what I was trying to say, I agree with you. Clarity in communication and all that...

If its C2 stepping it got VT-D. That he will never use in his life.

 

[Blandge]

No, he's 100% right. The only way that that type of market segmentation works, in the real, world, is if you have a near-monopoly on the market, and no competition.

Dodge doesn't offer a Neon with a Hemi V8, they must have a monopoly on cars.

 

[lamedude]

Wish they did a better job of advertising it. It took me a while to find out why my SSE4.1 binaries were crashing in on my Wolfdale Pentium.

 

[2is]

A low end chip with missing features... This isn't news.

 

[SPBHM]

A low end chip with missing features... This isn't news.

the sad news were (when SB was released) Intel locking completely overclock on lower end parts...
I miss my E5200 at 3.8GHz

my e5200 at the time didn't even support VT-x (later with the R0 revision they added the support), but it also had no support for SSSE3 and some advanced power states, which other Wolfdales supported... so yes,