Given that the hardware is there to monitor both power consumption and temperature I'd imagine they've engineered the PCU to incorporate both metrics into its clockspeed/voltage decision table.
Given that the hardware is there to monitor both power consumption and temperature I'd imagine they've engineered the PCU to incorporate both metrics into its clockspeed/voltage decision table.
khon
Golden Member
- Jun 8, 2010
- 1,318
- 124
- 106
That's what I'm hoping.
Thing is I'd like to overclock the SB CPU I plan to buy, but I'd also like to keep power consumption low during regular use. Ideally I'd do that by keeping everything at stock values, but increasing the size of the turbo boost. However, if it automatically downclocks itself after some period of time, the whole thing becomes somewhat useless.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
Meh... my i7 920 at stock is more than enough for any game or anything today, in thr future i can overclock it to 3.6-3.8 and hold on until AMD comes out with something or until intel gives up on this anti oc bs.
bryanW1995
Lifer
- May 22, 2007
- 11,144
- 32
- 91
from what aigo has said the i7 SB will still oc just fine, plus they'll have the K series for ~ $40 more, so it's not like oc'ing won't be possible. $40 extra to get a good oc with an unlocked multi is probably something that many/most of us would have paid anyway for nehalem.
@maximillian: just oc now, much more fun that way! ()
@maximillian: just oc now, much more fun that way! ()
If that's what it is then okay. I'm more tempted to get a used 970/980 when SB comes out though. I'll wait until it comes out and see what's what.
konakona
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2004
- 6,285
- 1
- 0
Case in point, just built a new computer out of a 955BE, since that was the fastest cpu/mobo combo at around ~$100AR (yes fry's, gotta love em) with overclocking factored in. If CPUs continue to get faster while cpu requirements in games stagnate, then I really wouldn't care. Still might oc for the hell of it, only if that didn't incur significant increase in cost of ownership.
Although I understand overclocking can be a hobby in its own light, to me it's more of a means of achieving affordable no-compromise gaming.
His post said 'The good new is that the title of this thread is totally silly and wrong too'. The title is 'Intel plans to deliberately limit Sandy Bridge overclocking'. Now, Sandybridge might have limited overclocking because of a cost cutting design that tries to combine everything down to one clock signal, which results in CPUs that can't be overclocked as much while at the same time not being intentionally designed to kill overclocking.
The guy's statement could be entirely true (that Intel isn't intentionally trying to kill overclocking), while at the same time not really be denying that Sandybridge might have more limited overclocking compared to what people are used to.
lol you silly goose. Intel puts a $750 nerd tax on the enthusiast model of the i7 ($290 for the locked 930 vs $1040 for the 975 extreme).
AMD puts a $100 nerd tax on their unlocked 6-core ($200 for the X6 1055, $300 for the X6 1090)
Clamping down on overclocking is one of the worst things Intel could do with their newest processors. When the i7 first came out, I swear to god I didn't see a single one in Best Buy for at least a year. So that leaves the question of who is buying new processors as they come out? It's people who are building their own computers and ordering the parts from places like Newegg. Those are the same people who tend to like overclocking. Look how bad the OG Phenom failed when people found out it was near impossible to overclock.
All i know is, i'd raid-0 3 ssds, buy a premium sound card, and and SLI/Xfire on AMD before i would pay a $700 premium to overclock an Intel processor.
Oh, you can bet AMD would put a $750 "nerd tax" on it if they could and have it sell (ie, if it performed like a 980x). FX series, anyone?
That's the problem--we need AMD and Intel to be relatively close together performance wise, so neither one of them can pull that crap ;p
Tsavo
Platinum Member
- Sep 29, 2009
- 2,645
- 37
- 91
haha, instead of calling it the nerd tax let's just call it the sucker tax.
I really doubt they're doing this to specifically stifle overclockers. More likely it's just a profitable side effect. Shaving a few cents off total system costs through not buying (for an example) an external clock crystal and controller are what OEMs are all about; it's where they make their money, especially in highly integrated markets like notebooks and other portables.
No need to make it a derogatory situation. If you made a grand a day and really digged getting into overclocking would you care whether your cpu cost $1k or $300 when you are pairing it with a rig that already cost you some $8k including the sub-zero cooling setup?
The "sucker" part comes in if someone who really just can't afford to throw that much disposable income at their hobby is "tricked" into thinking it is necessary. No hobby is necessary, that's kinda the financial end of the definition of hobby. But a hobby should be affordable, and affordable is defined by one's disposable income.
What I can afford annually for my hobby might be less than you spend on one evening at an exquisite restaurant that I'd never find myself in. Or vice versa. No need to call it being a sucker, unless you really can't afford to dine in such places.
I can afford to dine in such places because I don't spend $$$ extra on a chip for the privilege to OC
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
What anti overclocking is it that Intel is against.
Intel hasn't said SB isn't O/C able . If they have could I get that link . DR. Who spoke on the subject. YA I read what agra. Had to say in this thread . I also read what he said to NEU, In the XS thread. Look if you guys don't want or like Intels 1155 SB don't buy it. Go buy AMD. Do yourself a favor . SB : NOT over clockable because intel doesn't want it to . OR Because intel screwed up : This is better than Comedy TV.
Has Intel ever officially stated any of their CPU's were overclockable?
TMK the only official stance Intel has ever taken regarding overclocking is that doing it voids your warranty.
Are we really expecting them change their policy regarding statements made on overclocking (for or against)?
Sandy Bridge could be engineered to not allow clockspeed alteration beyond 5MHz and I still wouldn't expect Intel to say boo regarding its overclockability. Likewise the chip could overclock to 15GHz and I still wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for Intel to say I can buy their 3GHz model and overclock it to such.
What do you mean by that (serious question, I couldn't figure out what your post meant, can you reword it)?
Anyway so the questions really that haven't been answered (assuming dr who isn't just completely full of crap, which he might be, who knows):
1. How much can you raise the multiplier (or just the turbo multiplier maybe?) on the "locked" processors. Can this multiplier be used all the time on all cores?
2. What is the price premium on the unlocked processors? (ie, $25 sure, $75 maybe, $150 no thanks, people will buy AMD or save up for gulftowns or buy an 1156 or 1366 platform). Intel employs some really friggin smart people, so I think it's doubtful that they will cost more than $100 more than the locked parts--that would kill sales. My guess is $50-$75 more. What do you all think?
And the main question (I mean lets face it, it's not like anyone is expecting Sandy Bridge, at least the 1155 version, to outperform a 980x or whatever, so the million dollar question is...):
3. How good is the GPU??? NO ONE is talking about this, no numbers are out, all we got is a crappy little WoW demo that didn't show anything. So, how good is it? If Intel can bring, say, Radeon 55xx performance, this will be a mind blowing processor. That's unlikely, but COULD happen. Disclaimer here is that that performance would need to actually come with equivalent image quality--for example, the IGP on i3/i5 stuff can sometimes beat a 5450 performance wise, but that's only because the image quality is rofl night/day horribad (try sometime you'll see what I mean lol). So, how good is this GPU? What all does it support? DX10, right? Intel won't surprise us with DX11 will they? Will the GPU multiplier be unlocked on some or all SB cpus? I'm dying for some more info on this. (This is also why AMD's bobcat excites me so much).
Going by intels past performance, it will be the slowest in the industry for graphics.
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
- Oct 14, 2003
- 8,686
- 3,787
- 136
Actually there's good info from that WoW demo. First look at the Anandtech results: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/4
The GMA HD is only 30-40% faster in WoW than the G45. With both system running WoW set to high, the 65nm-based GMA 4500 was getting roughly 3-4 fps. The GMA HD wouldn't do much to make it playable in this case. The Sandy Bridge graphics? It had perfectly playable fps which suggest at least 20 fps.
Plus, the demo was on a laptop system. David Perlmutter mentioned there will be an order of magnitude of improvement or more from the 65nm graphics. Seems like at least for WoW, they can deliver that. 10x improvement from G45? Seems like they have a good chance being competitive with HD55xx core in....
Let's see the proof first. Mass Effect IQ problem was fixed last driver version, and Unreal Tournament 3 by default sets "screen percentage" at 50% not 100%. Actually you'll notice with latest drivers and little bit of research the IQ difference is small, if nonexistant in games.
Are we supposed to be impressed that Intel has finally caught up to where AMD and Nvidia were 5 years ago?
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
- Oct 14, 2003
- 8,686
- 3,787
- 136
For integrated graphics? Probably. On the high settings the AMD integrated graphics can't play WoW either.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-clarkdale-core-i5-661,2514-4.html
4.6 fps on 1280x1024 Ultra? The 890GX with 700MHz might do maybe 6 fps?
Last edited:
World of Warcraft on a Samsung N510 Ion Netbook
Looks pretty smooth to me. This netbook uses Nvidia's graphics.
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
- Oct 14, 2003
- 8,686
- 3,787
- 136
A GMA950 can run WoW playably... if you put settings all low. Did you see the settings on the video?
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter