Will Intel release 125MHz and 167Mhz strap overclocking for non-K Haswell refresh?

[Lepton87]

I guess another way Intel could go about this (without allowing overclocking) would be to bump stock clocks on the Celeron, Pentium and Core i3 desktop cpus. Sometimes I really think these chips could use a big speed bump compared to what some of the Intel laptops are already receiving.

Hardly possible for i3

http://ark.intel.com/products/77771/Intel-Core-i3-4340-Processor-4M-Cache-3_60-GHz

the fastest i3 is already at 3.6GHz, they could make it turbo to 3.9GHz but that's it.

http://ark.intel.com/products/77773/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3220-3M-Cache-3_00-GHz

3GHz for Pentium is not that bad. They could add 400MHz or so but would that make a perceptible difference? 3GHz@4.2-4.5GHz would be another matter entirely.

 

[Idontcare]

i don't know how else someone is supposed to take what you wrote.


no, i completely agree with the results of the poll. i don't think intel will allow strap overclocking to 125 and 167 on a future non-k haswell refresh. why would i?


i think you're misinterpreting the results with regards to your post about intel losing the connection with laypeople (as if they're overclocking anyway; what percentage of computer users do you think overclock? i'd be shocked if it's over 5%.) and budget enthusiasts. how many people even read your post before voting in the poll?


i don't know how it can't. you brought up budget enthusiast. not me. not the OP.


or maybe i'm just dining on caviar for thinking a ~$200 unlocked quad that can hang with intel's best for typical "enthusiast" workloads is a good value.

Budget enthusiast is the person who buys a $100 CPU and would like to OC it. How is that not on topic?

 

[CHADBOGA]

What? Last time I checked 4770K costs about 350$ in retail.

http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/

Then again I don't think it can hang with Intel's best unless you limit the number of threads to 4, in such a scenario it's going to be the fastest CPU out there even.

I'm sure he had the i5 4670K in mind.

 

[ElFenix]

What? Last time I checked 4770K costs about 350$ in retail.

http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/

Then again I don't think it can hang with Intel's best unless you limit the number of threads to 4, in such a scenario it's going to be the fastest CPU out there even.

i'm obviously talking about a 4670k. and for most enthusiast workloads *cough*games*cough*, it's just peachy. esp. when overclocked.

you might say, well, enthusiasts have different workloads like encoding. well and good, but overclocking isn't going to overcome the advantage that a quad (even a locked quad) inherently has in that type of workload. now, granted, the quads aren't as cheap as the duals. but that's not artificial market segmentation by playing with the engineering.

It is not a bad price, but I think Intel could do better by opening the enthusiast level to the lower chips as well.

These days I think it is fair to say many people consider full power desktops (even if they are only dual core) a luxury item. My guess is that the average person will probably spend money on a smartphone and some kind of dual core laptop. After these dollars are spent it is probably a toss up between a Tablet and a Desktop...if they even buy anything additional at all.

the people buying cheapy dual core laptops at walmart don't know what overclocking is and don't care about it. their laptop does everything they want for $500. in a nice portable form factor.

if you really want intel to do better you'd create some application that everyone wants and that a 6 year old core2 doesn't offer *good enough* performance in.

Budget enthusiast is the person who buys a $100 CPU and would like to OC it. How is that not on topic?

how much of an enthusiast are you if you're not eating ramen to get the processor you really want? :hmm:

again, paying ~$100 extra to get an unlocked part (even less as the cheapest quad is $190 on newegg) isn't dining on caviar.

that's my real beef with your assertion. i have an unlocked quad. i'm not a member of the mercedes driving jet set.



(hey, a 300A cost $149 in 1998, that's ~$210 today.)

 

[PliotronX]

(hey, a 300A cost $149 in 1998, that's ~$210 today.)

Ah thems were the days. My OEM Malaysian 300A was actually $110 and OCed to 504MHz

 

[cbn]

Hardly possible for i3

http://ark.intel.com/products/77771/Intel-Core-i3-4340-Processor-4M-Cache-3_60-GHz

the fastest i3 is already at 3.6GHz, they could make it turbo to 3.9GHz but that's it.

Desktop Haswell Core i3 only has a 54 watt TDP (and that includes a 20 EU iGPU) so there is room for improvement. The cpu cores could become a good deal faster if TDP was bumped back up to 65 watts and the extra power wasn't invested in faster iGPU. In comparison a Core i7-4600M (standard voltage mobile dual core with HT) has a 2.9 Ghz base clock with 3.6 Ghz Turbo....to me that is pretty close to the performance of the 54 watt desktop chip.

Another mobile chip to think about is the Core i5-3230M, a standard voltage dual core with HT that carries a pretty fast clockspeed of 2.6 Ghz with 3.2 Ghz turbo. It can be found in sub $500 laptops like this one--> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834230988.

http://ark.intel.com/products/77773/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3220-3M-Cache-3_00-GHz

3GHz for Pentium is not that bad. They could add 400MHz or so but would that make a perceptible difference? 3GHz@4.2-4.5GHz would be another matter entirely.

Pentium definitely could use more clock speed.

Same goes for Celeron.

 

[ElFenix]

Ah thems were the days. My OEM Malaysian 300A was actually $110 and OCed to 504MHz

i miss OEM chips. seems intel and AMD have both clamped down on that practice.

 

[cbn]

how much of an enthusiast are you if you're not eating ramen to get the processor you really want? :hmm:

and again, paying ~$100 extra to get an unlocked part (even less as the cheapest quad is $190 on newegg) isn't dining on caviar.

and i guess that's my real beef with your assertion. i have an unlocked quad. i'm not a member of the mercedes driving jet set.

$240 i5-4670K quad cores ($200 on sale) are still relatively pricey. Furthermore, the total package cost for mainstream enthusiast desktop gets expensive when a person also factors in the motherboards with extra VRMs, heatsinks and CPU Tower coolers needed for overclocking 4 cores to get the best level of single thread performance. In contrast, a Core i3 desktop shouldn't need any of the extra supporting gear even at speeds beyond 4 Ghz.

And while I do realize many newer games are optimized for quad core, there is still a pool of really fun games that don't need anything more than a dual core. By making quad core the only way to get the best single thread performance Intel is effectively trying to upsell as many folks as they can to a more expensive product than they need. At some point this strategy will begin to lose momentum (especially if Intel continues to focus on optimizing for mobile rather than desktop.) At that point, Intel will either need to significantly beef up their IPC or allow overclocking on cheaper SKUs. My guess is that they will continue to optimize for mobile rather than significantly boosting IPC, otherwise why was the 125Mhz strap and 167 Mhz strap developed for mainstream desktop cpu?

 

[SecurityTheatre]

Ah thems were the days. My OEM Malaysian 300A was actually $110 and OCed to 504MHz

Sigh.

I spent $450 and had a dual 504MHz system when, at the time, a single 450MHz chip cost $800.

 

[ElFenix]

$240 i5-4670K quad cores ($200 on sale) are still relatively pricey. Furthermore, the total package cost for mainstream enthusiast desktop gets expensive when a person also factors in the motherboards with extra VRMs, heatsinks and CPU Tower coolers needed for overclocking 4 cores to get the best level of single thread performance. In contrast, a Core i3 desktop shouldn't need any of the extra supporting gear even at speeds beyond 4 Ghz.

you really only need all that when you're trying to eek out that last 100-200MHz. the performance difference you get for that is barely measurable, let alone actually felt.

historically speaking, the 2500k, 3570k, and 4670k have been cheap and at a very high performance level without overclocking. all of the current normal TDP desktop quads share that. and we're complaining!

And while I do realize many newer games are optimized for quad core, there is still a pool of really fun games that don't need anything more than a dual core. By making quad core the only way to get the best single thread performance Intel is effectively trying to upsell as many folks as they can to a more expensive product than they need. At some point this strategy will begin to lose momentum (especially if Intel continues to focus on optimizing for mobile rather than desktop.) At that point, Intel will either need to significantly beef up their IPC or allow overclocking on cheaper SKUs. My guess is that they will continue to optimize for mobile rather than significantly boosting IPC, otherwise why was the 125Mhz strap and 167 Mhz strap developed for mainstream desktop cpu?

if they wanted to fix the single threaded 'problem' then they're far more likely to add turbo to dual cores than to allow overclocking. overclocking does nothing for the vast majority of people because the vast majority don't overclock and their eyes would glaze over when you explain delving into the BIOS and playing with bclk and dividers/strap and CAS latencies and whatnot. but you can sell turbo in a commercial.

further, i'm going to take a gander that if the game can't use more than dual core then it probably doesn't get that much extra play-ability from adding even 1,000 mhz to whatever the i3 lineup has these days. because it was probably designed with core2 in mind.