On the threshold of "Pleasurable Computing".

[Magic Carpet]

He has a bunch of them..

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?_odk...70.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.TRS0&_nkw=Z600+&_sacat=0

Will go thru the list later. Thanks Burpo :thumbsup:

What GPU were they using?

Titan SLI.

Rule #1. Everybody needs a quad core.

WE WON'T GO BACK! YOU CAN'T MAKE US!

Seconded.

If I were too add, a decent quad core. Not the type usually found in cheaper AMD laptops.

 

[cbn]

(E5 2670 8C/16T currently starts @ under $70 shipped (with very high processor quantities available) in various ebay buy it now listings)

I know people who sold it in a heartbeat for like half the price, because it couldn't properly load their GPU in games.

What GPU were they using?

Titan SLI.

That is not surprising to me.

The idea I proposed for using Surplus E5 Xeons is not to replace high end processors.

The idea is replace Pentium and Core i3 in DIY builds and also to serve as a pipe cleaner for the 8C/16T Cannonlake mainstream desktop.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Rule #1. Everybody needs a quad core.

WE WON'T GO BACK! YOU CAN'T MAKE US!

Well, technically, I did refurb my Llano quad that was my old HTPC (before I "downgraded" to an ITX rig with a G1610 too) for her to use. The PSU in her current G1610 may be getting sketchy, and it seems to be a custom micro-ATX job.

 

[Magic Carpet]

The idea is replace Pentium and Core i3 in DIY builds and also to serve as a pipe cleaner for the 8C/16T Cannonlake mainstream desktop.

I didn't read it properly, just skimmed thru it. I stand corrected. Well, I am definitely in, I wouldn't mind cheap server "rejects" in budget builds at all. Is Intel aware of this little, brilliant idea of yours yet? It's definitely sad, to see so many go on eBay every day, without a proper/cheap/new/consumer option of re-using them.

Well, technically, I did refurb my Llano quad that was my old HTPC (before I "downgraded" to an ITX rig with a G1610 too) for her to use. The PSU in her current G1610 may be getting sketchy, and it seems to be a custom micro-ATX job.

It's safe to say, that a good processor today is a balanced one. You need both ST and MT performance.

 

[cbn]

It's definitely sad, to see so many go on eBay every day, without a proper/cheap/new/consumer option of re-using them.

Yeah, I'm thinking these really good processors will just go into a Landfill unless someone finds a purpose for them.

And I don't see why Intel wouldn't support the re-use (via X79 chipsets) when it doesn't conflict with Pentium and Core i3 desktop sales (which classically go in Big Box SFF Pre-builts meant for Mom, Pop and business use, not DIY ATX towers).

I just hope someone in Taiwan at least proposes this idea to Intel. I (and others) can support such an initiative externally, but we need the internal people to also have the vision and do the necessary work to make it happen.

 

[Ranulf]

Arrrgh...I've been saying for years and years and years, pick the right tool for the right job.
I'd much rather have a Skylake Celeron with a good M.2 SSD than a Skylake i5 with something like a WD Green hard drive.

No. My 1037 Celeron laptop form late 2013 with an ssd running win8 can still suck, especially on windows updates. It is easy to upgrade to an ssd, not so easy with processor.

I'm pretty sure the one thing making my 5 year old i5 dell laptop slowdown is its intel video chip. It sure isn't only 4gb of ram. A refurb i5 2020m model I have has an ssd and a nvidia chip in it, the video card is probably the big helper there along with the ssd.

 

[jpiniero]

I just hope someone in Taiwan at least proposes this idea to Intel. I (and others) can support such an initiative externally, but we need the internal people to also have the vision and do the necessary work to make it happen.

What, and lose a new processor sale? Intel's having a hard time moving units as it is. I think you're lucky Intel hasn't gone BGA mostly if not only.

 

[VirtualLarry]

What, and lose a new processor sale? Intel's having a hard time moving units as it is. I think you're lucky Intel hasn't gone BGA mostly if not only.

I'm not sure moving to BGA is such a wise idea. It would preclude upgrade sales of new CPUs for the same mobo/socket.

It would, IMHO, result in more e-waste.

 

[cbn]

What, and lose a new processor sale? Intel's having a hard time moving units as it is. I think you're lucky Intel hasn't gone BGA mostly if not only.

What processor sales would they lose though?

Wouldn't E5 2670 (on X79) be in a unique category that doesn't overlap with anything else from Intel?

It is basically the slow, but many core approach that Intel doesn't have yet. (except for things like Xeon-D which obviously it wouldn't compete with either due to the power consumption and feature set differences)

I say Intel would be better off expanding the low end desktop market in a different way than they have been doing. And it wouldn't cost them hardly anything.

P.S. Would be interesting to find out how much Intel would sell a X79 chipset for compared to say Braswell? Not that I think X79 and Braswell overlap though. (For example, I don't think Dell, HP, Lenovo would be interested in X79 but I'll bet some of the Taiwan OEMs that specialize mostly in DIY would)

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

No. My 1037 Celeron laptop form late 2013 with an ssd running win8 can still suck, especially on windows updates. It is easy to upgrade to an ssd, not so easy with processor.

I'm pretty sure the one thing making my 5 year old i5 dell laptop slowdown is its intel video chip. It sure isn't only 4gb of ram. A refurb i5 2020m model I have has an ssd and a nvidia chip in it, the video card is probably the big helper there along with the ssd.

SKYLAKE Celeron, as in G3920. The 1037U is a low-voltage Ivybridge part.

 

[crashtech]

I'm not sure moving to BGA is such a wise idea. It would preclude upgrade sales of new CPUs for the same mobo/socket.

It would, IMHO, result in more e-waste.

Even many of the enthusiasts on this forum act as if the CPU is glued to the socket, all you hear about upgrades is how cost-inefficient they are. So obviously we aren't expecting average users to ever upgrade a CPU. Fortunately sockets still exist to provide the initial selection and price point, mostly for OEMs, but happily still for us as well. The variety allowed by a socket would be impossible to duplicate with BGA. That said, I've already had three different CPUs in my Z170 board, but that's anomalous behavior.

 

[Torn Mind]

One can never have enough single-threaded performance, even when dealing with mere web browsing. Fractions of a second add up to seconds, and seconds to minutes. However, there does come a point where dealing with the bottleneck of disk read/writes should be addressed first over CPU speed if you want to make the "ultimate browsing rig".

 

[VirtualLarry]

One can never have enough single-threaded performance, even when dealing with mere web browsing. Fractions of a second add up to seconds, and seconds to minutes. However, there does come a point where dealing with the bottleneck of disk read/writes should be addressed first over CPU speed if you want to make the "ultimate browsing rig".

True. I just did a test, between my:
1) i3-6100 (stock, 3.7Ghz), 2x4GB DDR4-2800 @ 2133, Silicon Power 240GB MLC SATA6G SSD, Win7 64-bit, crunching NumberFields@Home on 3 out of 4 virtual cores
2) G1820 (stock, 2.7Ghz), 2x8GB DDR4-1600 @ 1333, VisionTek GoDrive 120GB MLC SATA6G SSD, Win7 64-bit, crunching NumberFields@Home on 1 out of 2 cores.
3) G4400 (OCed, 4.455Ghz), 2x4GB DDR4-2400 @ 2520, Samsung SM951 PCI-E 3.0 x4 AHCI M.2 SSD, Win7 64-bit, crunching NumberFields@Home on 2 out of 2 cores.

I was using the same model mouse (an EVGA laser gaming mouse), and was at the AT forums index. I clicked on CPUs and Overclocking, and then used the back and forward buttons to flip back and forth.

All three rigs had roughly the same subjective timing. Although, I was crunching on both cores on the G4400, and only one core on the G1820.

If I shut down the crunching on the G4400, it seems ever imperceptibly faster.

Edit: Peacekeeper results, Firefox 44.0 x64:
1) 6810
2) 4746
3) 7846

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Even many of the enthusiasts on this forum act as if the CPU is glued to the socket, all you hear about upgrades is how cost-inefficient they are. So obviously we aren't expecting average users to ever upgrade a CPU. Fortunately sockets still exist to provide the initial selection and price point, mostly for OEMs, but happily still for us as well. The variety allowed by a socket would be impossible to duplicate with BGA. That said, I've already had three different CPUs in my Z170 board, but that's anomalous behavior.

As you point out socketed CPUs aren't just about upgrades. Its about platform flexibility. You want a 6700K in a H110 board, you can do that. You want a G4400 in a Z170 board (I'm looking at you Larry... :biggrin, you can do that too.

That flexibility would be lost completely with soldered BGA. Think about the consequences. You'd like a high-end K CPU? Right. That's restricted to high-end chipsets and mainboards. Now, I do believe a lot about Intel, but I'm going to give them enough credit that they're well aware they'd shoot themselves in the foot doing that.

 

[jpiniero]

As you point out socketed CPUs aren't just about upgrades. Its about platform flexibility. You want a 6700K in a H110 board, you can do that. You want a G4400 in a Z170 board (I'm looking at you Larry... :biggrin, you can do that too.

Presumably the models in question would have the PCH ondie (maybe onpackage) so you wouldn't have that option anyway.

 

[XiandreX]

Well, my Mom had a Celeron 440 (C2D single-core, 2.0Ghz), 2x512GB DDR, and XP at one point. Then I built her an AMD X2 dual-core, with DDR2, again with a HDD, but she didn't want to upgrade. Then, I finally built her a G1610 rig with an SSD, and 16GB of DDR3. She was finally amazed at the performance.

I don't really feel that for what she uses it for, that she needs a quad-core, but maybe in the future.

See that's my point. Sure for most menial tasks a dual core would be sufficient, however a good quad core gives you so much more breathing room.
It's the breathing room I wanted to give my Mom.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Presumably the models in question would have the PCH ondie (maybe onpackage) so you wouldn't have that option anyway.

Oh, that bound to happen eventually. In the AMD camp and with Bay Trail/Braswell it already has. But I think we'll see either board firmware enable options, or, as AMD has done, a "basic" internal PCH with a connection for a "real" PCH.

 

[Magic Carpet]

As you point out socketed CPUs aren't just about upgrades. Its about platform flexibility. You want a 6700K in a H110 board, you can do that.

Exactly. ASRock figured there is a market for it. As this model proves:

Of course, there is a fair amount of marketing involved here. Nobody runs LinX to measure real-world temps. But it's still nice to have heatsinks, considering this mobo is cheap as chips.

 

[Ranulf]

SKYLAKE Celeron, as in G3920. The 1037U is a low-voltage Ivybridge part.

Forgive me if I have doubts that it will last longer than a previous gen celeron has.

 

[Torn Mind]

Forgive me if I have doubts that it will last longer than a previous gen celeron has.

The 1037U is clocked at 1.1 GHz. Desktop "Bridge" family chips cannot even be set below 1.6 GHz. G530s and 540s, which were the $40-45 chips at the time, were clocked at 2.3 and 2.4 GHz, respectively.

The E8300 was clocked at 2.83 GHZ. Skylake is six generations removed from that processor. Assuming 5% gains every generations, the G3900 is over 1.586 times faster then that chip, assuming 5% IPC gains every generation.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The 1037U is clocked at 1.1 GHz.

Just a minor correction. The Sandy Bridge Celeron 847 (U?) was clocked at 1.1Ghz. Subsequent IVB U Celerons, the 1007U was clocked at 1.5, and the 1037U was clocked at 1.8.

Your point still stands though.

But the 1037U isn't quite as anemic as you made it seem.

 

[tential]

I love how still years later virtual Larry can't distinguish the difference between buying a good enough cpu and buying the fastest i7 available.

So hilarious to see terrible purchasing decisions again and again month after month year after year

 

[VirtualLarry]

I love how still years later virtual Larry can't distinguish the difference between buying a good enough cpu and buying the fastest i7 available.

So hilarious to see terrible purchasing decisions again and again month after month year after year

And...? The G4400 @ 4.455Ghz is FASTER than an i7-6700K (at stock 4Ghz) for my purposes. I even purchased an i3-6100, and it's SLOWER than my G4400 (at stock). The extra threads did nothing for me. (Other than they can get ever-so-slightly more done with DC while I'm browsing.)

Edit: Let's see your PeaceKeeper scores for your i7-6700K. (Both stock and whatever OC you have it at. I'm curious.)

Edit: While there might have been some validity in criticizing my purchase of my C-70 NanoPCs, I really don't think that criticizing my choice of an overclocked Skylake Pentium chip, rather than an i7 (why stop there, why not invest in HEDT for web browsing), is valid. I think you're off-base.

Edit: And if an i7-6700K ever becomes the minimum baseline for acceptable web browsing performance, then there are going to be a lot more people than just myself that are disappointed and stuck with "slow / useless" machines.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Larry, can you still use the integrated gpu on your highly oc'ed pentium?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Larry, can you still use the integrated gpu on your highly oc'ed pentium?

I haven't tried, I have a 7950 in there. I read in the notes about "SKY OC" that it wasn't usable.