|
fishmech posted:Yeah AMD tells you you should pay full price for a complete replacement CPU from the same batch that was binned differently. Yeah I don't understand the nerd rage (over at Engadet at least) over this. They even have car analogies about it!
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
.
Not James Buchanan fucked around with this message at 03:04 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
Gembolah posted:Not sure if you're serious, but it's a pretty stupid idea overall. This kind of consumer surplus squeezing is fairly annoying, and deprives most people of value they shouldn't have to pay extra for. Here is the current situation: Joe Average Computer Owner walks into Wal-Mart and buys a crappy Gateway with a slow Intel CPU. If he wants it to go faster he has to go buy another CPU or take the time and effort to learn how to properly manipualte voltages and multipliers and poo poo. Here is the situation with this card: Joe Average Computer Owner walks into Wal-Mart and buys a crappy Gateway with a slow Intel CPU. If he wants it to go faster he buys this card, types in a code and his computer is faster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 20:19
|
|
|
.
Not James Buchanan fucked around with this message at 03:04 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
I wonder how they are going to stop pirates/hackers from unlocking their processor without buying a code.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
Gembolah posted:Not sure if you're serious, but it's a pretty stupid idea overall. This kind of consumer surplus squeezing is fairly annoying, and deprives most people of value they shouldn't have to pay extra for. They've gotten better with Windows 7, but you could still find yourself stuck with having to pay an additional cost to upgrade to a better version of Windows through Windows Anytime Upgrade. It's been working for Microsoft for years, so I don't see them changing over to Apple's method of just selling everybody one version of the client. Because it's worked so well for Microsoft and because it's so easy these days for consumers to pay for the upgrade, I see Intel and eventually AMD doing this a lot more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 20:37
|
|
|
SanitysEdge posted:I wonder how they are going to stop pirates/hackers from unlocking their processor without buying a code. Yeah, how exactly does this work, legally? Precisely what am I buying when I buy one of these processors? Is there a EULA involved that prohibits me from downloading a free program that unlocks the processor in the same way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
Gembolah posted:Aren't those high-end C2Qs like 300-400 bucks? Basically, that is enough to upgrade to an i5-750 + motherboard + RAM. I'm not sure that was as clever an idea as you think it was... At the time the new models were announced but not really available in my country and the ones you could get were overpriced. Plus I needed my old CPU to upgrade my media centre PC. Point is this PC is doing just fine, my ATI 4870 is the biggest bottleneck. The i3/5/7 was a completely pointless generation, for me, with two worthless sockets that are obsolete after a year. I'm happy to have sat the whole thing out. We'll see if Sandy Bridge is worth bothering with. The GPU isn't as good as my 4870 and I haven't heard much about if the CPU is an improvement, or if there is anything around that needs it. Note that Crysis 2 is going to have lower requirements than the original. Don't care about H264 encoding. I think what I'm getting at is we're even reaching a point where any gaming system from the last couple of years is good enough, with the possible exception of a need for a GPU upgrade, which Sandy Bridge isn't going to deliver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
Lum posted:At the time the new models were announced but not really available in my country and the ones you could get were overpriced. Agreed...I would have rather annoyed at having my i5/i7 hardware obsoleted in only a year or so, if I had bought 'em. Perfectly happy with my LGA775 C2D + 8GB DDR2. I'm hoping this next socket will have a lifetime comparable to LGA775, but lasting more than a year or so would be wonderful. I know I would have gone for Asus's high mid-end to top-end offering (so, $250), probably 6GB of RAM at the least, and an i7. The only parts I would have been able to carry over is the RAM. My current bottlenecks are GPU (2x 8800GTS 640...don't really care, because I don't game as much as I used too) and HDD (all mechanical still). Don't really *need* Sandy Bridge, but I'll probably get a new mobo + CPU + RAM as a treat to myself for now having a big-boy job. I don't know what I'll do with my old hardware though. Too lazy to sell it, and I don't really need another PC for stuff...virtualization ruins the fun of having a farm of PCs doing different random things. But, power savings!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
The socket lasts for one tick-tock iteration. This is nothing new. Socket 775 was around forever but the 945 boards didn't all support Conroe so most people ended up upgrading anyway. Conroe/Yorkfield had 775, Lynnfield and Westmere had their own.
WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Sep 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
Gembolah posted:Except that Intel would be selling their crappy CPU for less money except for their near monopoly on parts for manufacturers. Now they get to squeeze consumers because of their obscene market power. Except they already are selling the more expensive part to everyone, or did you really think binning only ever happened to defective chips? Did you ever wonder WHY it is that it's often possible to overclock and such the really cheap CPUs much more than the high end ones?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
fishmech posted:or did you really think binning only ever happened to defective chips? Binning happens to all chips (although for that matter, all chips are defective to some extent). What you're complaining about is selling chips at a lower rating than the bin they qualified for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:Binning happens to all chips (although for that matter, all chips are defective to some extent). What you're complaining about is selling chips at a lower rating than the bin they qualified for. I'm not complaining about it. I think this is great for your average computer user.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
So should Joe Public Gamer wait for a day 1 Sandybridge/Bulldozer rig or buy up a decent i5/Athlon 2 rig as a stopgap and wait to see if the new socket has any major bugs in the first releases? Basically does this have the potential to be another Socket#754 that receives no support after a couple of years or is the current generation in that spot?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
I don't think anyone on this forum has ever recommended buying a day 1 rig. You'll notice everyone saying "i'm happy with my C2D/C2Q I might sit this one out." Also, those benchmarks that were linked show sandy bridge underperforming the top-end i7 chips. The i5 is an amazing processor, buy one now and it'll last you plenty of time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
On one hand, I'm itching to get a Sandy Bridge. On the other hand, I'm going to sit it out a while, waiting for prices to come down, especially since I expect the LGA2011 variants marked up like poo poo. I do own a C2Q 9450 right now, so I'm not pressured.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:The i5 is an amazing processor, buy one now and it'll last you plenty of time. i5 is a branding, not a processor. Many of the Sandy Bridge processors will be sold as i5. And they'll share the two features that make the i5-750 so compelling- quad cores with turbo boost. Spime Wrangler posted:Also, those benchmarks that were linked show sandy bridge underperforming the top-end i7 chips. The benchmarked sandy bridge is targeting one step below the i5-750, so about $175. The high-end i7 that it can't quite beat is $1,000 and holds a 2 core advantage. Sandy Bridge probably won't become a must buy until they come out with an affordable 6-core turbo part, but it's still looking pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 00:26
|
|
|
The benchmarked chip also didn't have Turbo Mode enabled, which limits potential performance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:You'll notice everyone saying "i'm happy with my C2D/C2Q I might sit this one out." Also, those benchmarks that were linked show sandy bridge underperforming the top-end i7 chips. If only Intel hadn't put out an excellent product in the form of the Core 2 Family!  The next evolution in CPU technology will be an integrated self-destruct mechanism that goes off 2 years after manufacture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 01:15
|
|
|
All I mean is that what is currently available as an i5 is an excellent upgrade. Sandy bridge will surely be better, but not so much so that it'll instantly obsolete today's value buys and justify limping a single core along for another year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
As I mentioned before, I have a Q8200+8GB+9800GTX+. I'm planning to upgrade to a 2500(k?), 4GB, and whichever $200 GPU is best the day sandy is available. (I'll save 8GB of RAM for the laptop, games don't really need it, yet. Nobody that has an i7 machine *needs* to upgrade. You still have one of the fastest machines around for consumer use. The P4/C2D/C2Q chips are getting a bit old, however. As to new socket, if 5% of consumer upgraded their CPU I'd be amazed, if *1%* have ever upgraded their CPU without a mobo swap I'd also be amazed. I certainly have never done a CPU upgrade without a new mobo. Its a non-issue. The only people who care are us enthusiasts and we can sell our old boards WITH the CPU, so its *still* not a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:As to new socket, if 5% of consumer upgraded their CPU I'd be amazed, if *1%* have ever upgraded their CPU without a mobo swap I'd also be amazed. I certainly have never done a CPU upgrade without a new mobo. Its a non-issue. The only people who care are us enthusiasts and we can sell our old boards WITH the CPU, so its *still* not a big deal. Any AMD board in recent memory can be used with lots of the newer AMD processors because they've kept the same socket. I read all the time that boards that are 3-4 years old are running the latest and greatest. It isnt common, but AMD has done well keeping the socket they've been using. Kind of like LGA775, though there are a few boards that are 775 that cant use C2D/C2Qs, but mostly really early P4 boxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
The new boards have DMI and south PCIe gen 2 and integrated SATA gen 3 (no crappy third party controllers). That is something you can't get by staying on old boards.quote:Kind of like LGA775, though there are a few boards that are 775 that cant use C2D/C2Qs, but mostly really early P4 boxes. 775 hung around forever but a bunch of 945s did not support Conroes, much less 925s. And I don't think the older P4s and Preslers worked on the later released 775 mobos either. Conroe and Yorkfield were 775, Lynnfield and Westmere had their own. If it felt like 775 had more support, it's maybe because it feels like a longer period between Conroe->Lynnfield and Lynnfield->Sandybridge quote:Any AMD board in recent memory can be used with lots of the newer AMD processors because they've kept the same socket. I read all the time that boards that are 3-4 years old are running the latest and greatest. It isnt common, but AMD has done well keeping the socket they've been using. And even then, wasn't the AM1 socket an abortion at least compared to 939 and AM2? WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Sep 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 03:50
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:And even then, wasn't the AM1 socket an abortion at least compared to 939 and AM2? I thought it was an abortion of the 940 socket, they shared similar pins
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 03:55
|
|
|
KKKLIP ART posted:Any AMD board in recent memory can be used with lots of the newer AMD processors because they've kept the same socket. I read all the time that boards that are 3-4 years old are running the latest and greatest. It isnt common, but AMD has done well keeping the socket they've been using. Kind of like LGA775, though there are a few boards that are 775 that cant use C2D/C2Qs, but mostly really early P4 boxes. I run an Athlon 64 X2 on an Asus M2N-E board, the system is about 4 ish years old. Asus released a new bios this year that adds support for AM2+ and AM3 processors up to a Phenom II X4 495. That doesn't magic it up some USB 3.0 ports or anything but it makes for a nice interim upgrade if you want it. The 754/939/940 socket clusterfuck between Socket A and Socket AM2 was fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 05:55
|
|
|
I'm extremely underwhelmed. What's supposed to excite me here exactly? New architecture with 10% power savings and 10% speed improvement Too negligible to matter for the home user. Only big companies will care, and hopefully they realize 99% of their employees can get by on Atoms. Dedicated H264 encoding chip Niche improvement that seems pointless. Who does video encoding other than scene groups and video professionals? Those people already have dedicated hardware for this. Little Jenny can capture her vlog from her webcam just fine with her current hardware. You can't overclock like you used to Overclocking is a stupid waste of money and shouldn't be done but limiting the option is a negative for the CPU riceboy types. Integrated GPU that doesn't suck The only interesting thing so far. But even that will probably do more harm than good. The vast, vast majority of buyers won't play high-end 3D games, so adding 40W to the power consumption (or however much it draws at idle load) of every next-generation Intel-based computer just wastes the consumer's money and rapes the environment further. When I saw the thread title I was really hoping news of a design that cut power consumption in half or something. Turns out it's mostly more of the same. Changing the face of computing? It's just changing the socket type.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 06:46
|
|
|
MachinTrucChose posted:New architecture with 10% power savings... quote:so adding 40W to the power consumption (or however much it draws at idle load) ... just wastes the consumer's money and rapes the environment further.  Anyway, what makes you think this will have a significantly higher idle power consumption than the alternatives for that market segment?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
Jabor posted:
I take back what I said. I thought that sort of GPU would draw a high amount of power, but the two cards the OP mentions only draw 8W at idle. Here's hoping Intel's GPU is even more efficient. Out of curiosity, anyone know how much the current crappy onboards draw? As for the 10%, I just feel it's too minor an improvement for a new generation. I honestly think the home user is set for the next 2 to 3 years (if not more) in terms of computing power, so I wouldn't mind if the focus became almost exclusively about power consumption.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 07:05
|
|
|
MachinTrucChose posted:Dedicated H264 encoding chip quote:Integrated GPU that doesn't suck
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 07:05
|
|
|
japtor posted:It'll give Apple an integrated iX chip solution that'll fit within their board space on their low end, and won't be horribly slow vs Nvidia's IGP that they're using now w/C2Ds (sounds like it's faster?). one problem with this is that apple is pretty big on opencl. the 9400M in my mac mini can at least run GPGPU stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 07:11
|
|
|
Apple has been pretty big on tons of things that get unceremoniously shitcanned when they can do soemthing else...
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 07:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Apple has been pretty big on tons of things that get unceremoniously shitcanned when they can do soemthing else... I wish they'd bump up the GPU in the Apple Macbook Pro though
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 07:17
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:one problem with this is that apple is pretty big on opencl. the 9400M in my mac mini can at least run GPGPU stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 07:36
|
|
|
If my quad phenom II ever starts to fall behind i might just go intel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 07:37
|
|
|
People saying that 775 was an exception and you should expect sockets to be short lived need to remember further into the past. Slot A was around for ever, then it was replaced with Socket 7 with which it was electrically compatible and adaptors were available. Lots of people kept their old 440BX boards for years, starting with the likes of a 300MHz Celeron and finishing up on a pIII running over 1GHz. Of course it didn't help that the chipsets designed to replace the 440BX were all terrible. I then went to AMD as the P4 was terrible. I can't even remember the name of the socket (Socket A?) but that socket lasted a long time as well. I think I started with a 1400+ tbird then a 2000+ Athlon XP and finally a 2600+ Athlon-XPM that I harvested from a dead company laptop. I was lucky (poor) enough to skip the Socket 939 debacle and went straight onto 775 with a C2D and later a C2Q. So yeah, to me at least, a socket that lives for only a year is a shameful socket. As for the new chipset features. USB3 I can add with a card if I ever happen across a USB3 device and find it too slow and I guess the new SATA is good for people using SSDs? It's certainly worthless for people using harddrives. Lum fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Sep 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 08:53
|
|
|
Yep. I have a board right now with USB3 and have never used it for that purpose because ESATA is just as fast and cheaper than USB3 external hard drive cases. People are treating it like USB when it was first released, reasonable right when it came out, and then jacked up in price when it starts to gain ground. The prices will probably get back to normal by next spring
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 10:07
|
|
|
Lum posted:People saying that 775 was an exception and you should expect sockets to be short lived need to remember further into the past. ...what do past architectures and sockets have to do with this current generation or Intel's current tick-tock model? In the past things may have been different, but for the most part, looking at the previous socket, this isn't anything new quote:As for the new chipset features. USB3 I can add with a card if I ever happen across a USB3 device and find it too slow and I guess the new SATA is good for people using SSDs? It's certainly worthless for people using harddrives. USB3 is not a chipset feature, although south PCIe gen 2 is. This is important because that add-on card you are talking about buying most likely is a x1 card and you'll instantly be capping your very fast bus to much slower PCIe x1 gen 1 speeds. Similar with SATA 3. Not only can you stop using a third party controller (which may or may not be lovely), but DMI is gen 2 so your upstream isn't capped at x4 gen 1 speeds. I do agree that not everyone may care about that (people who currently don't have SSDs). WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Sep 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 15:28
|
|
|
quote:Other Platform Features Call me when the Intel reference boards can do SATA600 on all SATA ports and have native USB 3.0 without the need for a third party. In addition to that, let me know when SSDs that support SATA600 are over 500GB in size and are reasonably priced. Until then I'd rather just lean towards a C2D -> C2Q, more memory or a small, cheap SSD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 21:12
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:As to new socket, if 5% of consumer upgraded their CPU I'd be amazed, if *1%* have ever upgraded their CPU without a mobo swap I'd also be amazed. I certainly have never done a CPU upgrade without a new mobo. Its a non-issue. The only people who care are us enthusiasts and we can sell our old boards WITH the CPU, so its *still* not a big deal. The whole 939 crap was what turned me off from the idea of buying quality, discrete components with the hope of future upgrades. When my NB fan died on a perfectly good Ath64X2 system, I tried to find a replacement mobo, but I couldn't even find a used one on ebay for <$150. Seemed pointless when I was able to pick up a whole q9450 HP system for $600. Just package them together (like the Atom boards) with a known-decent sink and fan and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
So I'm not a computer engineer or anything (so I should probably shut up) but given the level of architectural rearrangement we're seeing with CPUs today I think it's somewhat natural that the sockets obsolete relatively quickly. Someone who knows what the hell they're talking about: How hard would it be to put the GPU on a chip using a current-gen socket? Are there legitimate architectural reasons for moving sandy bridge to a new socket, or is it simply a planned obsolescence thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 23:23
|
|