|
real_scud posted:What is standard voltage? Cause I'm running 4.5 right now but my cpu voltage is at 1.22 and with all the dicking around I've forgotten what it originally was. It's not stated on the Intel product page but according to my BIOS, 1.25V. However, I'm not sure if the 2500K is the CPUs with varying stock voltages.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:So I'm poking around the UEFI BIOS on my MSI P67A-GD65, just looking at all the piles of settings and getting myself properly amused by the fact that I think I can play loving Tetris in my BIOS, but 90% of the actual options are completely undocumented with an obscure name. This is one of the primary reasons why I stick with the Intel reference motherboards and not ones from Asus, MSI, etc. In my experience over the years, Intel motherboards by those companies over-clock extremely well and provide a huge amount of features. However, their documentation is poorly written or spotty at best. With every Intel reference board, everything is documented and explained in detail. It might not provide the same level of over-clocking functionality and provide a great set of features, but it's often stable as a rock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:It's not stated on the Intel product page but according to my BIOS, 1.25V. However, I'm not sure if the 2500K is the CPUs with varying stock voltages. Each processor has some internal offset. Some chips need more volts, some chips do with fewer. My first one would auto itself all the way to 1.32V even at stock clocks. My current one ratcheted itself from 1.21V to 1.28V going to 4.6 GHz.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
I just hope the i5-2500K I'm getting Monday is not like my C0 revision Wolfdale E8400 in which I could never get a stable overclock unless I overvolted it to uncomfortable levels. 1.325V for a 400MHz overclock. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:I just hope the i5-2500K I'm getting Monday is not like my C0 revision Wolfdale E8400 in which I could never get a stable overclock unless I overvolted it to uncomfortable levels. 1.325V for a 400MHz overclock. Aren't Z68 boards coming out in a couple of days? Might be worth waiting for a cheap bundle or sale.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 08:06
|
|
|
LiftAuff posted:Aren't Z68 boards coming out in a couple of days? Might be worth waiting for a cheap bundle or sale. I already ordered the parts and they are on their way to be delivered tomorrow. Don't need a Z68 board since I'm using my system primarily for gaming and internet anyway with folding@home on the side. I'll finally get to game and fold with a powerhouse quad-core chip.  
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
Got my 2500K up and running but core #0 runs ~4-5 degrees Celsius cooler than the other three cores even under the load of Prime95. Is that normal?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Got my 2500K up and running but core #0 runs ~4-5 degrees Celsius cooler than the other three cores even under the load of Prime95. Is that normal?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Interesting revelation: The new Sandy Bridge-based Apple iMacs use the Z68 chipset. Maybe this means SSD caching will be coming in a future OSX update?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Interesting revelation: The new Sandy Bridge-based Apple iMacs use the Z68 chipset. Maybe this means SSD caching will be coming in a future OSX update? Are there any other advantages to the Z68 chipset other than running integrated graphics and overclocking at the same time?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Are there any other advantages to the Z68 chipset other than running integrated graphics and overclocking at the same time?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
No one here cares about the 3D transistors in the upcoming Ivy Bridge? http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/04/intel-will-mass-produce-22nm-3d-transistors-for-all-future-cpus/
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Quick question - would the B3 updated motherboards have BIOS changes versus a non-updated board? I have an old original board which only uses one SATA port so it isn't affected by the bug, is it safe to apply the latest BIOS to it?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
No problems, apply away. A few minor changes were introduced along with B3 boards (like displaying the board revision), but the only difference between the B2 and B3 steppings is not a thing that requires updated software. Even the Rev 3.1 P8P67s with a different USB 3.0 controller use the same BIOS releases, it looks.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:No one here cares about the 3D transistors in the upcoming Ivy Bridge? If those transistors make the performance increase that dramatic, I'll just keep my laptop until Ivy Bridge (and whatever AMD processor) comes out. Can't justify getting rid of it anyway while it's still under extended warranty.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Interesting revelation: The new Sandy Bridge-based Apple iMacs use the Z68 chipset. Maybe this means SSD caching will be coming in a future OSX update? Ars indicated there was a 1 month delay if you got a SSD+HD combo, so i'm pretty sure they're shipping from the factory already setup. Also from Ars implied they are intel SSDs for this setup. e: That processor looks like it can be seriously removed and upgraded. incoherent fucked around with this message at 06:57 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Ars indicated there was a 1 month delay if you got a SSD+HD combo, so i'm pretty sure they're shipping from the factory already setup. Also from Ars implied they are intel SSDs for this setup. Don't see why not, it's a desktop part. But I wouldn't expect Apple to release the EFI upgrade necessary to drop in an Ivy Bridge part or fiddle with the multipliers on a K chip.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 07:11
|
|
|
unpronounceable posted:If those transistors make the performance increase that dramatic, I'll just keep my laptop until Ivy Bridge (and whatever AMD processor) comes out. Can't justify getting rid of it anyway while it's still under extended warranty. Considering a SB mobile i7s are already faster than a desktop i7-920, imagine mobile IB with 22nm + 3D transistors which I guess 20% higher clocks at the same power envelope, in addition to architecture improvements to the CPU and 3x IGP performance = Oh my gooooooooooooooooooooood.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 07:38
|
|
|
Alereon posted:PCI-E port bifurcation, meaning running two PCI-E x8 slots from the x16 connection on the CPU. Come to think of it, this could be how they connected the Thunderbolt controller? You can already bifurcate with the P67 and H67, just depends if your motherboard maker has configured the soft-straps appropriately in BIOS. My P8P67 will happily bifurcate the x16 PEG link into 2 x8 when needed (which is nice considering I have two RAID controllers). I think the Thunderbolt controller would use a x4 link out of the PCH; it can't support x8, IIRC. Just DP + external PCIe x4. R1CH posted:Quick question - would the B3 updated motherboards have BIOS changes versus a non-updated board? I have an old original board which only uses one SATA port so it isn't affected by the bug, is it safe to apply the latest BIOS to it? WhyteRyce posted:No one here cares about the 3D transistors in the upcoming Ivy Bridge?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Ars indicated there was a 1 month delay if you got a SSD+HD combo, so i'm pretty sure they're shipping from the factory already setup. Also from Ars implied they are intel SSDs for this setup. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
movax posted:You can already bifurcate with the P67 and H67, just depends if your motherboard maker has configured the soft-straps appropriately in BIOS. My P8P67 will happily bifurcate the x16 PEG link into 2 x8 when needed (which is nice considering I have two RAID controllers).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I'm pretty sure H67 doesn't support bifurcation though, so if they wanted the full PCIe v2.0 x4 bandwidth they may have resorted to connecting it to the CPU, especially if they had any desire to make use of switchable graphics or Quick Sync. If they ran it off the southbridge it would be competing for bandwidth with the other system devices. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
japtor posted:Well I'm not sure how much you could really take from it, but Intel's example diagram of TB shows it as connected to the PCH: PCH has Lanes 0-7, 0-3 and 4-7 can be ganged together to form x4 links. Only available bifurcation options for the CPU are x16 or x8/x8. The x8 can train down to a lower link width, but the the remaining lanes are wasted. (Because very few consumer motherboards implement PCI Express switches). Alereon: I'll log into IBL at work tomorrow and see what the H67 can do bifurcation wise. I think the reason we don't see any H67 boards w/ bifurcation is because that particular use-case is pretty rare. movax fucked around with this message at 03:39 on May 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
Anandtech has a new article up about Intel's Ivy Bridge CPU, Panther Point chipset, and SSD roadmaps. It looks like they're not being too douchey about 7-series chipsets, all consumer chipsets will have IGP and overclocking support. The differentiation is that the H77 chipset doesn't support PCIe port bifurcation, Z75 doesn't support Smart Response Technology (SSD caching), and Z77 adds support for 3-way PCIe port bifurcation (8+4+4) as well as everything else. All chipsets (except X79?) support USB 3.0. Intel also plans to introduce a 20GB SSD 310 specifically for use with SSD caching, lets hope they don't do anything lovely like REQUIRE an Intel SSD.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
Does anyone know why Intel hasn't released the i5-2500T to retailers yet? My build is all prepped, just waiting on that part 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
Ashex posted:Does anyone know why Intel hasn't released the i5-2500T to retailers yet? My build is all prepped, just waiting on that part Alereon fucked around with this message at 18:12 on May 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The Core i5 2500T/2500S processors are OEM-only and not available at retail. This thread at Anandtech has details from an Intel distributor. Your best option would probably be an i5 2400S. Keep in mind that the actual power usage at the same load levels will be identical regardless of TDP, higher-TDP processors can just be loaded harder. I'm building a low power pc and so I'm being super picky about parts (it's all going to be running off a 160W PicoPSU with a DA-2 power brick). I assumed it would be getting to some retailers after I read this review. The reviewer had contacted Intel who said that any retailer could order it from them, so I pre-ordered from eXtremePCgear.com
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
Ashex posted:I'm building a low power pc and so I'm being super picky about parts (it's all going to be running off a 160W PicoPSU with a DA-2 power brick). I assumed it would be getting to some retailers after I read this review. The reviewer had contacted Intel who said that any retailer could order it from them, so I pre-ordered from eXtremePCgear.com
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I think the confusion is that Intel says it's available to anyone who wants to order a tray quantity of 1000 CPUs, which might be a lot for a retailer to stomache on a low-volume item, especially one not intended for retail sale. Unfortunately I think you're stuck with underclocking a Core i5 2400S, if your platform can't tolerate another 20W (which again is only PEAK power, you actually save power with higher TDP processors). Bugger, I'll email the shop I pre-ordered from to see if they're going to be shipping soon (When I emailed them a month ago they said end of april-ish) otherwise I'll cancel and look at another proc. I'm looking at about 130W peak load with a 2400S and 150W with the 2400. The 160W PicoPSU can do peak load of 200W, and with 18A from the DA-2 I do have a little flexibility (although I still want that 2500t!). This is the load I had figured out awhile back: (idle/load) Sata DVD: 3/5 ATI 5670: 16/76 i5-2400: 3.8/54.4 OR i5-2400S: 3.7/39.9 WD 2.5" 500GB: 0.83/1.8
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
So is Ivy Bridge going to be significanly faster than Sandy Bridge clock-for-clock just because of the 3D transistors? I can see why it would make the chips more energy efficient but I'm not following on how it would make the chip faster in terms of clock-for-clock performance. And would the 3D transistors affect overclocking ability in any way? I also love it how less than a week after I upgrade to Sandy Bridge it's already obsolete in terms of transistor technology.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:So is Ivy Bridge going to be significanly faster than Sandy Bridge clock-for-clock just because of the 3D transistors? I can see why it would make the chips more energy efficient but I'm not following on how it would make the chip faster in terms of clock-for-clock performance. And would the 3D transistors affect overclocking ability in any way? I also love it how less than a week after I upgrade to Sandy Bridge it's already obsolete in terms of transistor technology. The initial, stated plan for Ivy Bridge was that it was a straight die shrink of Sandy Bridge. I am not sure how or if 3D transistors affect that, but from the press summaries of the tech, it seems like the primary effects are lower power consumption and an ability to achieve higher clock speeds and break the 4 GHz barrier somewhat. Per-clock, I think the available information highly suggests that Ivy Bridge will be identical to Sandy Bridge. Speaking of the 4 GHz barrier, it's quite clear that Sandy Bridge easily breaks it with a significant number of chips. Why is Intel binning them (both Core and Xeon versions) and the upcoming Sandy Bridge E series to all have stock clocks that max at 3.9 GHz? Is it the $3.99 trick to keep people from not buying their more plentiful, cheaper parts just because they aren't in the 4 GHz tier?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
If that's true then unlocked Ivy Bridge chips might be able to be easily overclocked to over 5GHz on air cooling.  
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:
Guessing that they might not have the chip nailed down yet and don't want to repeat the Pentium III 1.13Ghz thing again.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 11:00
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:The initial, stated plan for Ivy Bridge was that it was a straight die shrink of Sandy Bridge. I am not sure how or if 3D transistors affect that, but from the press summaries of the tech, it seems like the primary effects are lower power consumption and an ability to achieve higher clock speeds and break the 4 GHz barrier somewhat. Per-clock, I think the available information highly suggests that Ivy Bridge will be identical to Sandy Bridge. To be able to do the die shrink down to 22nm node, they have to use the trigate (3D) transistors, so that means they can have a larger transistor count, lower wasted currents, and higher performance gains, making it better than Sandy Bridge. Fortunately for people buying into Sandy Bridge, they keep repeating that the current socket will be compatible with Ivy Bridge, making it a matter of just upgrading the motherboard firmware.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
Trickyrive posted:Fortunately for people buying into Sandy Bridge, they keep repeating that the current socket will be compatible with Ivy Bridge, making it a matter of just upgrading the motherboard firmware.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
We recently had the news that the top end Sandy Bridge-E processors are going to be 8-core processors (rather than 6 as previously assumed), which should give a pretty nice boost. The 130W TDP should provide room for pretty nice Turbo scaling as well.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
More cores is always good, but there are also hopes for better single core performance thanks to quad channel and more cache.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
That didn't really work out between first-gen i5s and i7s, though, did it?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
I never really got the point of triple channel. In a system were everything orients it self by the power of two or something divisible by two, three isn't exactly a common denominator. I don't know exactly how memory interleaving works, but if it's done with very fine granularity, I'd figure in a triple channel system, one channel would always be doing twice the work of the other two, e.g. a 256bit transfer on an aggregate of 192bit (3x64bit). And by that, holding up performance more than practical.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
You're not transferring bytes around though, you're doing large block transfers where the main limitation is total bandwidth. The main issue with Nehalem was that Lynnfield was a more efficient design that came later, so it was able to do more with less. Sandy Bridge-E is an evolution of Sandy Bridge, so it has the potential to perform better on workloads that respond well to additional memory bandwidth or more than 4 cores (of which there aren't too many).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 23:03
|
|