• 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.

Sandy Bridge may be Un-Overclockable

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
khon said:
If BD can't even beat Westmere-EP then AMD is seriously screwed, given that they'll be launching it about the same time Intel releases Sandy Bridge-B2.

Here's hoping BD is the new k8 instead.
Click to expand...

which is why intel said F U to us guys in CPU, and HELLO 25nm SSDs.
 
This sucks, and in a big way! No way will I support Intel and SB, not with this shennanigans. There's no engineering reason why they had to tie all of the clocks together. In fact, long-standing engineering practices is for all I/O clocks to be async to processor clocks. What is this, a throwback to Socket7 or something? Intel engineers returning from a bad acid trip that took 20 years? Utterly, utterly, stupid.

Support AMD, people. They supported overclocking with their unlocked processors for years. They support the enthusiast, so we need to keep supporting them.
 
khon said:
Well that works for me too. I want one of those 25nm SSDs 😀
Click to expand...

then you will be very happy.

My sources are telling me, dont buy ANY SSD until G3's come out.
They will force another price war on the market.
 
If the OP is true:

It's funny when Core2 came Intel were having these OC demonstrations IMO to get the enthusiasts back (since AMD was the better choice until then)...and now that they have them back...

AMD has been doing the same thing since Core2 came out with their Black Edition stuff...

It seems both Intel and AMD only want the enthusiasts when either of them are behind the other. This is to be expected of course. 🙂
 
well...

the P55 was originally supposed to be a non overclocking platform.

That was how intel originally had the lineup listed, which is why the P55 has a bastardized VTT limit vs the X58.
The X58 was supposed to be the gateway to overclocking.

That is why the X58 was closer to an enterprise package then a consumer package.


Guys i can understand your fustration.
You should of seen my friend spew a ton of bad words followed by downing a bottle of liquor after he sat down with sandy bridge.

I thought that was epic.
 
aigomorla said:
kalrith said:
I won't buy a CPU that can't be overclocked unless its price/performance is better than competing CPUs after being overclocked to the max.

The best-case scenario is for a mobo manufacturer to find a way around this or for Intel to quit the shenanigans.
Click to expand...

So intel misses in sales on what? a few 1000 systems.
Who cares when DELL will buy 10,000 of them.

There is probably at least 20x more Dell machines out there then there are overclocked custom machines.
Click to expand...

Please point out where in my post I said that Intel would lose out on a lot of sales. I just said they would lose out on 1-2 sales (mine) unless they still win from a price/performance standpoint or someone comes up with a way to overclock the CPUs.
 
khon said:
Well that works for me too. I want one of those 25nm SSDs 😀
Click to expand...

Me too! I was reading that Intel has already begun to produce the chips, and we should be seeing 600 GB Intel SSD'd by end of 2010 to beginning of 2011.

Ahh... 600 GB that's faster than the X-25, that would be amazing.
 
I can't see that it would be that hard to incorporate a frequency switch on the motherboard to emulate whatever frequency the bus needs while conforming with the processor. To be honest I think that even if there is no workaround, this isn't a big deal for all but the LN2 overclockers.

Being able to OC in a 100mhz resolution isn't the end of the world and may actually simplify things for the average overclocker. How many of us try to hit breakpoints such as 3.8/4.0/4.2? vs absolute limits of the chips?

Uncore could go either way, if they allow us to hit the 2666mhz memory speeds, I'm sure you can use a fat Uncore multiplier to further increase performance.

And QPI frequency doesn't matter anyways.


Whats interesting to me about the article is how they claim support for memory with the 133bclock multipliers... 2133, 2666 ect. Last I heard they were going to use a bclock of 100.
 
Is this really confirmed at this point? I remember some rabble rousing over this last generation being uncoverclockable because the new architecture intel was using would prevent it. It may happen for this coming generation, but it didn't for the last.
 
Ben90 said:
And QPI frequency doesn't matter anyways.
Click to expand...

:hmm:

QPI is connected to latency, which is also connected to bclk.

What do you mean it doesnt matter?

200x20 =! 30x134

200x20 will beat the 30x134 in ANY benchmark you throw at it, because of the lower latency on the QPI.
 
Last edited:
I've been saying this for a while now! 😛

aigomorla said:
:hmm:

QPI is connected to latency, which is also connected to bclk.

What do you mean it doesnt matter?

200x20 =! 30x134

200x20 will beat the 30x134 in ANY benchmark you throw at it, because of the lower latency on the QPI.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
OCGuy said:
People said this about Nehalem.
Click to expand...

actually about P55..

And it looks like SB neuters your VTT even more

intel-socket.png


which means very little bclk overclocking.
 
aigomorla said:
Guys i can understand your fustration.
You should of seen my friend spew a ton of bad words followed by downing a bottle of liquor after he sat down with sandy bridge.

I thought that was epic.
Click to expand...

LOL! oh man. Well, hopefully socket 2011 will be great. Do we know anything about it yet? Other than the name and what's on that slide? If bulldozer isn't competitive we're really screwed imho.
 
Intel's been trying to tax enthusiasts markets for a while now. First with the extra expensive 1366s, now with the locked internal clocks. I guess they really want us to pay a premium for doing this hobby. What I don't understand is that the OC community is like 1% of all their sales, why they even it more expensive for this 1% of people is beyond me. Why waste their engineering resources on this when they can work on cpu design instead. maybe they feel they are so far ahead of AMD they can afford to burn man hours to squeeze enthusiasts for some fun. Well screw you Intel!
 
richierich1212 said:
Even if Bulldozer was competitive I highly doubt people would jump ship and buy AMD
Click to expand...

yeah but the thing thats really pissing people off is this.

If you go C2D @ 4ghz, you can still say C2Q @ 4ghz was greater.

Then i7 @ 4ghz was greater then a C2Q @ 4ghz.

Now SB @4ghz.. oh wait.. does it even go up to 4ghz... i dont think it will beat an i7 @ 4ghz... because i dont think SB will reach 4ghz. 😀
 
True but will it really piss off people so much to switch to AMD? I don't see that happening. You are content with Intel, just not their SB lockdown, right aigo?
 
richierich1212 said:
True but will it really piss off people so much to switch to AMD? I don't see that happening. You are content with Intel, just not their SB lockdown, right aigo?
Click to expand...

Well yeah because i decided to downsize my power requirements.

And it seems like intel is doing just that.

SB in a server platform would kick butt since u cant oc them anyhow.
And as i said SB was designed for iphone loves who drive prius and promote green peace thoughout the world.

😀

<sarcasm.. i dont mean to insult iphone users or prius owners.>
 
OT: Hey I have an iPhone 3G, but can't stand Apple products. Waiting to jump ship to Sprint or something, can't stand AT&T's dropped calls and slow 3G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top