|
Spiderdrake posted:Marketing: It really works! Marketing is part of what I do, too, so it's even worse. Physician, heal thyself. As to the latter, I'm thinking they expected something a little more substantial from Bulldozer and got a laugh factory instead. Having the 2700K ready to go and Sandy Bridge-E on its heels would have been a great answer to well-priced and competitive processors from AMD, but then we got Bulldozer and after everybody at Intel got over the hangovers they slowed down Ivy Bridge to get it right and cut back Sandy Bridge-E's aggressiveness to get it right - because they have what amounts to total freedom to work in for the enthusiast arena, and a really strong server lineup that desktop guys don't even usually think about very hard. AMD dropped this mediocre turd that can't even stand up very well to Westmere in most things, and their spin on it is embarrassing to watch. Intel's got no reason to rush.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The only CPUs guaranteed to not be rebinned higher level procs with some manner of defect, are the most expensive CPUs in any given family. And even most of the most expensive ones will have some level of defect separating them from the theoretically ideal. Agreed posted:I KNOW, that's the trouble, we have no idea if it's a real thing or if they're just "let's add an sku gently caress it make money money." And I'm the rear end in a top hat that'd pay for the 2700K because I'd be thinking, poo poo, the 2600K is kind of second tier, what if they're bad 2700s? There has always been a mix of 2600Ks that bin at 2700K performance and ones that don't. As they've made process improvements and new steppings to improve yields, the portion that bin at 2700K performance got large enough to reliably meet demand for a 2700K product, so they added the 2700K, and now the best 2600Ks are 2700Ks. But the thing is, thanks to those same improvements, the remaining 2600Ks still end up being better on average than the older 2600Ks anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:For all you know, they could be binned identically. I mean really, has anyone ever had a problem overclocking their 2600K by 100MHz? Wedesdo posted:I'm very happy with my 4.8 GHz on my 2500k, on air. If they are binning, it's not too much. They criteria they're binning to are an awful lot stricter than your criteria. For starters, they need to give a safety margin to keep them working in much crappier conditions than you're putting them in. But, more importantly, these days processors aren't frequency limited, they're TDP limited. If your 2600K didn't bin high enough to be a 2700K, it's not because it can't run at 2700K speeds, it's because it can't run at 2700K speeds without exceeding the maximum TDP; it might put out 97W instead of the specified 95W. It can go a lot faster if you tell it to, it's just going to take a lot more juice. Shaocaholica posted:How can you tell which procs (SB and IB) are die harvested and which aren't? Are all IB dual core procs moving forward doing to be die harvested quads? Generally speaking, fulfilling your low end parts through die harvesting is not desirable. You sell a lot more low end parts than high end part, but you won't end up with more harvested low-end parts than fully functional high-end parts unless you have really terrible yields. If/once your yields aren't terrible, then you're spending more silicon than necessary to make the low-end parts, hurting the profit margin on your highest volume products. That said, there are non-trivial engineering costs associated with designing another chip configuration, so it may not be worth it for low-volume parts anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
So are SB procs varying by a lot within the same design compared to previous Intel procs? Are we at the point with SBE where the variations are becoming less and less?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Not just profit, though. Thermal/power concerns, production consistency... Could need a stepping in order to get well-functioning and reliable 8-core produced with their current lithography. Don't go right for the "gently caress the consumer!" angle, it's possible that they just couldn't put out 8-core parts reliably or within the thermal envelope or power budget right now. Another reason, too much cannibalization of low end workstation (i.e. Xeon) sales.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:So are SB procs varying by a lot within the same design compared to previous Intel procs? I doubt anyone who truly knows the answer to this would be allowed to say, but there's no reason to think it's anything other than no. It's simply the nature of semiconductor manufacturing, the way it's been for 50 years. It's more economical to make things smaller than to make them reliably. Basically, if you could spend $5,000 today trying to manufacture 100 processors, would you rather end up with 90 Core 2 Extreme QX9770s and 8-9 lesser Core 2 Quads, or 60 SB i5s and 20 SB i7s? (Hint: an i5-2400 trounces an "Extreme" QX9770) Shaocaholica posted:Are we at the point with SBE where the variations are becoming less and less? We have always been at that point. Intel isn't going to tell you any more detail than that, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:(Hint: an i5-2400 trounces an "Extreme" QX9770) I would call that trading blows, not trouncing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 07:52
|
|
|
incoherent posted:I would call that trading blows, not trouncing. I wouldn't, the processor that $1500 when it came out just barely wins one benchmark and loses elsewhere ranging from "surprisingly not lovely, certainly makes AMD K10 processors look like crap but still showing its age" to "it performs 60% as well for ~$1350 more on its launch price." What are you trying to get across, exactly? Edit: The comparison demonstrates a significant IPC improvement within Intel's processor line, with a 3.1ghz quad beating a 3.2ghz quad by margins ranging from not too high to really high depending on the nature of the workload. And the i5-2400 isn't even the fancy one. All that shows is don't buy a processor with extreme in the name, hell, I've got a Q9550 system that's running at 3.8GHz no problem and it'll trounce any K10 processor at pretty much anything. Thanks to the inclusion of more advanced SSE, in part, it's kept up startlingly well but it still doesn't manage anything more than 1/2 the gflops of my 2600K using the latest linpack binaries. Agreed fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 08:41
|
|
|
incoherent posted:I would call that trading blows, not trouncing. The Quad Extreme only won 2 benchmarks. Some of those are 'lower is better' and some are 'higher is better'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
Another roadmap leak, no real surprises. Just another version of what some guy posted on AnandTech forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
Why are there no IB's in the Extreme performance section?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
Goon Matchmaker posted:Why are there no IB's in the Extreme performance section? Sandy Bridge E didn't come out for about 10 months after Sandy Bridge's initial release. I imagine Ivy Bridge E will take as long to surface.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
movax posted:Another roadmap leak, no real surprises. Just another version of what some guy posted on AnandTech forums. It's not a leak, that's marketing material given to employees of channel partners (and I'm pretty sure it's not under NDA). I have a folder full of the stuff. Edit: It may be under NDA. There's "Intel Confidential" written on the bottom of the slides. No other mention of confidentiality or NDA, though. Tons of notices on how "poo poo can change, check back", however. KillHour fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Dec 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
KillHour posted:It's not a leak, that's marketing material given to employees of channel partners (and I'm pretty sure it's not under NDA). I have a folder full of the stuff. Was just echoing the Engadget headline, I've got the silicon in front of me as well right now, but I don't like mentioning anything unless it already appeared on some blog like Engadget or something. Now I can't just wait for the spree of posts in the system building thread "I have a 2600K should I upgrade???". On the bright side, you can probably go pick up some Sandy Bridge parts cheap from [H] FS/FT, those people dump insane amounts of money into their PCs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
[H] FS/FT? Man, you just know that when they say the part was only overclocked on Sundays by a little old lady, they're leaving out the other six days of the week when some serious Tim Allen poo poo with with drills and a diesel generator went down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:[H] FS/FT? Man, you just know that when they say the part was only overclocked on Sundays by a little old lady, they're leaving out the other six days of the week when some serious Tim Allen poo poo with with drills and a diesel generator went down. Looking at the leaked mobile chips list and schedule, I'm disappointed to see that none of them will be available before March. I'm not really surprised, but I've got circumstances which are encouraging me to buy a laptop by that time. Are those dates in the leaked list reasonably close to when we can expect to see laptops on the market? Or is that when the chips start shipping to manufacturers and the real availability will be later?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
Tim Taylor was a character inspired by Tim Allen's stand-up routine, in which he did the same schtick. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:[H] FS/FT? Man, you just know that when they say the part was only overclocked on Sundays by a little old lady, they're leaving out the other six days of the week when some serious Tim Allen poo poo with with drills and a diesel generator went down.  It's ridiculous, but at least they're honest about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Tim Taylor was a character inspired by Tim Allen's stand-up routine, in which he did the same schtick. The feeling you feel right now is exactly how I felt in the Overclocking thread earlier, just, just understand okay
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
I'll get the pints of Ben and Jerry's, you get the spoons and DVD of "Sleepless in Seattle." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
VR-Zone has details about the Ivy Bridge mobile lineup, it's mostly pretty unimpressive, though the new Core i7 3667U is a pretty big upgrade over the i7 2677M. This 17W processor goes from 1.8Ghz with 11/8 turbo bins to 2.0Ghz with 12/10 turbo bins, which is a nice 400Mhz boost in peak dual-core clockspeeds (2.6Ghz to 3.0Ghz). I'm guessing most of the TDP budget on Ivy Bridge mobile processors went into the graphics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
Alereon posted:VR-Zone has details about the Ivy Bridge mobile lineup, it's mostly pretty unimpressive, though the new Core i7 3667U is a pretty big upgrade over the i7 2677M. This 17W processor goes from 1.8Ghz with 11/8 turbo bins to 2.0Ghz with 12/10 turbo bins, which is a nice 400Mhz boost in peak dual-core clockspeeds (2.6Ghz to 3.0Ghz). I'm guessing most of the TDP budget on Ivy Bridge mobile processors went into the graphics. Yeah, I think the primary jump was in giving the IGP some serious added TDP headroom. I wouldn't complain about having a stronger GPU on a portable without having to switch to a discrete chip, but then again, I don't know what kind of FPS it would deliver for gaming at say, 1680x1050.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 04:24
|
|
|
OCAU's FS/FT forum is pretty cool, you'll often see threads like "I'm selling this week-old 2600K because it only does 47x multi and I'm still looking for one that will do at least a 53x." Then the next week the same guy I'm thinking of will post another thread the exact same. Plus you can lowball the more esoteric or slightly-out-of-date stuff and geta good deal sometimes. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
movax posted:Yeah, I think the primary jump was in giving the IGP some serious added TDP headroom. I wouldn't complain about having a stronger GPU on a portable without having to switch to a discrete chip, but then again, I don't know what kind of FPS it would deliver for gaming at say, 1680x1050. Good thing nearly all laptops have piece of poo poo 1366 x 768 displays these days 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:Good thing nearly all laptops have piece of poo poo 1366 x 768 displays these days I actually seriously want a 15" Macbook Pro because you can get it with a 1680x1050 anti-glare display. Obviously I can't afford one, but I support the fact that Apple offers a myriad of 16:10 options. 13.3"? 1440x900. Delightful stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:Good thing nearly all laptops have piece of poo poo 1366 x 768 displays these days This fact annoys me very, very much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:I actually seriously want a 15" Macbook Pro because you can get it with a 1680x1050 anti-glare display. Dell and Lenovo usually have 15 inch laptops available with 1920x1080 or rarely 1920x1200. I've occasionally seen them available from Toshiba and others, but they're rare there. Also: Why can't you get anything better than 1280x800 on the 13 inch MacBook Pro? Just put the drat panel from the 13 inch Air in there so people can get 1440x900. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
DNova posted:This fact annoys me very, very much. But it's SHINY!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Posting from my ThinkPad T420 with a 1600x900 screen.  A few smaller PC laptops can be found with nice screens. The aforementioned ThinkPad, its Dell Latitude and HP Elitebook equivalents, the Asus Zenbook UX31, Sony S 13.3" and Z series. All of these except the Sony S use Intel HD Graphics, so they're all good candidates for Ivy Bridge even if the CPU performance is the same. gently caress, the Sony Z can have a 13.3" 1920x1080 screen. That's a crazy laptop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:gently caress, the Sony Z can have a 13.3" 1920x1080 screen. That's a crazy laptop. poo poo, what I wouldn't give to have that dpi on a desktop monitor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:poo poo, what I wouldn't give to have that dpi on a desktop monitor. You could do it on a 27" 4K (well, QFHD) display, if such a thing were made. You could play four BluRays tiled with no scaling with a screen like that. The next easy step down with similar PPI is an 18" 2560x1440 display.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Also: Why can't you get anything better than 1280x800 on the 13 inch MacBook Pro? Just put the drat panel from the 13 inch Air in there so people can get 1440x900. Even worse they could probably fit a 14" LCD in there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Our "old" Dell D420 / 520s at work are so popular because of the 1400x1050 res. With an SSD in them they are so much better than anything new & 16:9
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
dud root posted:Our "old" Dell D420 / 520s at work are so popular because of the 1400x1050 res. With an SSD in them they are so much better than anything new & 16:9 I ran my Pentium M powered D600 for the longest time (up until last summer) because it had a bitchin' 1400x1050. With RAM it did ok running Win7.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
movax posted:I ran my Pentium M powered D600 for the longest time (up until last summer) because it had a bitchin' 1400x1050. With RAM it did ok running Win7. My very old latitude that I bought from a friend for like 100 bucks was 1600x1200. It was insane. e- I guess business class laptops still have these obscene resolutions on relatively small displays right? Cao Ni Ma fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Dec 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
They do more often than consumer ones, that's for sure. My old Toshiba M200 tablet had a 12.1" 1400x1050 IPS screen. Unfortunately, it was a 6-bit panel with no temporal dithering so it banded like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:My very old latitude that I bought from a friend for like 100 bucks was 1600x1200. It was insane. Yep. The professional series (Precision, etc) tend to have those screen options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
movax posted:Yep. The professional series (Precision, etc) tend to have those screen options. Don't you love product segmentation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
I have a Dell XPS 15 laptop. It has a 1920x1080 15 inch panel and it's on the consumer side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
The XPS series is honestly more "Prosumer" than anything else. The only step up in series on the consumer side from Dell is an Alienware.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 04:10
|
|