|
movax posted:Still makes the best financial sense to get a 2500K right now and then wait for Ivy Bridge's successor before upgrading, IMHO. Or if you really must have 22nm this very instant, get a i3 or something. Don't think it's worth buying a 2500K and then getting Ivy Bridge, though you could probably sell the 2500K on a forum somewhere and not lose a terrible amount of money.  ).This was one of the weirdest upgrades ever for me though, because of all the non-Intel poo poo on my motherboard combined with a PCI SATA controller, and carrying over the Windows install from my P35 motherboard. Keyboard works fine in BIOS, I start Windows and can't type my password because my keyboard's on a non-Intel port... I can't download drivers because my ethernet's broken (don't remember if I was using a Realtek port on the old motherboard or what, but my new mb uses Intel ethernet, so still not sure why it didn't work automatically). I put in the motherboard driver CD to install all this poo poo and whoops, my burner is on the PCI controller and I can't see it because I don't have a driver for that installed yet. Had to switch cables, install about 8 different drivers, install controller drivers, then restart and switch cables back. Not difficult or anything but kind of surreal, very Windows 98-like considering how badly 7 normally goes out of its way to do everything for you 
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
movax posted:LGA2011 looks pretty pro though, can't wait to see people with entirely too much money start building some machines with that. RAM is ultra cheap too, 6x4GB go go go (I bought 2 3x4GB kits for my server recently, incredibly cheap).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:It was, but it was Q1. Now it's looking more like Q2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
SemiAccurate is reporting that bugs in the PCI-Express 3.0 PHY may lead Intel to launch Sandy Bridge-E without PCIe 3.0 supports. Previous rumors were that SB-E was pushed back to try to work on getting PCIe 3.0 working, but apparently that wasn't successful enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
When the Ivy Bridge releases, can we expect the -E version around the same date, as well? Or will it be launched with a considerable delay?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Alereon posted:SemiAccurate is reporting that bugs in the PCI-Express 3.0 PHY may lead Intel to launch Sandy Bridge-E without PCIe 3.0 supports. Previous rumors were that SB-E was pushed back to try to work on getting PCIe 3.0 working, but apparently that wasn't successful enough. Holy poo poo, called that one awhile ago! Not a big loss, PCIe 2.0 at current link widths is doing just fine. Still out of my price range though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
movax posted:Holy poo poo, called that one awhile ago! Not a big loss, PCIe 2.0 at current link widths is doing just fine. Still out of my price range though. Unless you like to wave your e-peen around, LGA2011 is an horribly unappealing platform with cheapest hex-core starting at ~$560 and boards probably around $250. So the CPU and mobo alone costs more than a 2500K gaming rig for just for extra 2 cores which most apps won't even use. I'm soooo excited! (not)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:Unless you like to wave your e-peen around, LGA2011 is an horribly unappealing platform with cheapest hex-core starting at ~$560 and boards probably around $250. So the CPU and mobo alone costs more than a 2500K gaming rig for just for extra 2 cores which most apps won't even use. I'm soooo excited! (not) Yeah, it'd be cool to wave around my e-peen, but I am very happy with my 2600K. It will be a long time before I look at upgrading CPU/mobo/etc again. I kept my E6600 for five years, expecting the same if not longer from this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
I'm definitely working on waiting for Ivy Bridge. The pushed back release deadline helps because it's a little bit after tax refund season which is good. I'm not exactly hurting at the moment, I'm on an e8400 with a Radeon HD 4890 so I'm thinking I should have no problem waiting until spring of next year to upgrade. The confusing thing I can see is how some of these Sandy Bridge processors/motherboard chipsets have different features. There are a lot of pro's and con's like one processor/motherboard does virtualization well, but another does overclocking fairly well. I hope they don't try to pull that poo poo in Ivy Bridge. PUBLIC TOILET fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Sep 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
COCKMOUTH.GIF posted:I'm definitely working on waiting for Ivy Bridge. The pushed back release deadline helps because it's a little bit after tax refund season which is good. I'm not exactly hurting at the moment, I'm on an e8400 with a Radeon HD 4890 so I'm thinking I should have no problem waiting until spring of next year to upgrade. Yeah, its retarded that the 2600K has VT-x but not VT-d despite being the top-tiered CPU for its socket, and P67 chipset should never had existed in the first place. But on the chipset front, AMD had a lot more pointless chipsets this gen and the last. freeforumuser fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Sep 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
COCKMOUTH.GIF posted:I'm definitely working on waiting for Ivy Bridge. The pushed back release deadline helps because it's a little bit after tax refund season which is good. I'm not exactly hurting at the moment, I'm on an e8400 with a Radeon HD 4890 so I'm thinking I should have no problem waiting until spring of next year to upgrade. Really your only problem is having only two cores. If you were really strapped for performance for BF3 or something, you could get a used Q6600 or Q9xxx and overclock it a bit as a stopgap measure. Only reason I upgraded from my E6600 was because I belatedly realized, no it wasn't my GPU bottlenecking, it was my poor C2D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 14:33
|
|
|
Ivy Bridge is tempting in the "if I had unlimited resources, that would be cool" kind of way. Hell yeah hook me up with a couple hex cores and let me stuff so much RAM in that fucker that I could compete with SSDs for space, sure. But then the bubble goes "pop" and I remember that I just spent quite a bit putting together a really salty Sandy Bridge 2600K setup that is absolutely loving blazing fast and that 16GB of RAM is plenty for what I do - which is sometimes pretty processor and memory intensive audio work! - and Ivy Bridge, while great in theory, is going to be ungodly expensive to even start into, let alone get the enthusiast parts to overclock well with. So gently caress that, but if I had the disposable income it sure would be cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Ivy Bridge is tempting in the "if I had unlimited resources, that would be cool" kind of way. Hell yeah hook me up with a couple hex cores and let me stuff so much RAM in that fucker that I could compete with SSDs for space, sure. But then the bubble goes "pop" and I remember that I just spent quite a bit putting together a really salty Sandy Bridge 2600K setup that is absolutely loving blazing fast and that 16GB of RAM is plenty for what I do - which is sometimes pretty processor and memory intensive audio work! - and Ivy Bridge, while great in theory, is going to be ungodly expensive to even start into, let alone get the enthusiast parts to overclock well with. So gently caress that, but if I had the disposable income it sure would be cool. Are you sure you aren't confusing Ivy Bridge with Sandy Bridge-E? "Regular" Ivy Bridge CPUs are intended to replace Sandy Bridge SKUs one-for-one, they'll either be the same price or cheaper. It's just a die-shrink that happens to come with a very big advance in process and manufacturing technology (triple-finned transistors). As a bonus, you don't even have to switch motherboards to use them, just need a BIOS update and you are good to go. It's the LGA2011 CPUs that will be the disgustingly expensive triple-channel memory, hexacore carrying, no integrated-GPU beasts, aka Core i7 Extreme 3930K and 3960X.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
 Yeeeeep.To be fair, I rely on a GPS unit which hasn't been updated since 2009 to go from place to place, so this isn't the only roadmap I'm having some issues with So, what's the deal, then, Ivy Bridge will be LGA1155 socket compatible, faster clock for clock, and around the same price? That's an upgrade I can get behind, if so, but I thought I remembered reading some new chipset being required to support it. Higher numbers. Wait, that's for integrated USB 3.0 support and stuff, right? Well, huh. If they can pull clock for clock as promised I might upgrade, but I'm not really sure; would it have made sense for someone with a pre-Penryn C2 that they had massively overclocked to chance it on a post-Penryn C2 that they might be able to massively overclock, or not? 22nm, what kind of voltage range is going to be safe for the processor I wonder? We're getting small enough now that shorter term damage to the microarchitecture becomes possible with voltages in excess of specification, aren't we? Certainly not going to gently caress around beyond Intel's stock LLC algorithm with Ivy Bridge if I do go for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:Yeah, its retarded that the 2600K has VT-x but not VT-d despite being the top-tiered CPU for its socket, and P67 chipset should never had existed in the first place. But on the chipset front, AMD had a lot more pointless chipsets this gen and the last.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
Agreed posted:So, what's the deal, then, Ivy Bridge will be LGA1155 socket compatible, faster clock for clock, and around the same price? That's an upgrade I can get behind, if so, but I thought I remembered reading some new chipset being required to support it. Higher numbers. Same socket. Will work with existing 6-series chipsets. Will just require a BIOS update from the board manufacturer to support the new CPUs and their VIDs/etc. Big name motherboards should be absolutely safe in this regard. However, PCIe 3.0 support on current motherboards could be iffy based on the analog muxes used on the PCIe slots. If they aren't rated for 8GT/s, they may fail at the higher speeds. Worst-case, this would mean that PCIe 3.0 add-in cards would drop to PCIe 2.0 data rates. The new 7-series PCH is also launching with Ivy Bridge, but it isn't required. It adds native USB 3.0 support and is pin/package compatible (at least for embedded) with 6-series PCHs. Still has 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes, 2x 6Gb/s SATA and 4 3Gb/s, but also integrated USB 3.0  Voltages will be lower, yeah, due to the newer and smaller lithography. I'd wait for some of the  HARDKORE OCers to ruin their chips and report voltages before playing around.e: IIRC, 7-series drops legacy PCI as well, so a motherboard that wants to do PCI will have to burn a PCIe lane and utilize a PLX 8112/8114/similar PCIe to PCI bridge IC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
I don't know about 7-series, but 6-series didn't drop PCI support it was just limited to Q-sku chipsets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
Apparently THG released some info on a SB-E i7-3960X and pre-production X79 board they got to test: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-performance,3026.html Looks interesting, though not all that much better than a 2600K except in heavily multi-threaded applications. I want to say I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge, but I just ordered a Z68 board with a ton of RAMs, so kinda jumped the gun there (although if I can upgrade later that's always a bonus). I'll be happy to be off 1366 at any rate. Anandtech has some vague information on a 2700K in the pipeline, but it looks like a binned 2600K more or less: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4757/intel-leaks-i72700k future ghost fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Sep 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
Hmm, on the subject of hardware none of the OEMs are down with the ultrabook platform.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Hmm, on the subject of hardware none of the OEMs are down with the ultrabook platform.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:Yeah, its retarded that the 2600K has VT-x but not VT-d despite being the top-tiered CPU for its socket
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:Yeah, its retarded that the 2600K has VT-x but not VT-d despite being the top-tiered CPU for its socket Didn't they do that to add value to their highest end Xeons and also because the features they disabled in the K-series chips were just extra things they wouldn't have to QA (the thinking was that those features were more likely to fail when OC'ed)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
Anandtech has some IVB info http://www.anandtech.com/show/4763/ivy-bridge-gpu-performance-up-to-60-faster-than-snb-better-quicksync quote:Ivy Bridge's GT2 configuration has 16 EUs, no word on how many the GT1 configuration will have. As a result Intel is expecting a 60% increase in 3DMark Vantage scores (Performance Preset) and a 30% increase in 3DMark '06 scores. IVB GT1 on the other hand will only see performance increase by 10 - 20%. If we look at the 3DMark Vantage data from our Llano notebook review, a 60% increase in performance over SNB would put Ivy Bridge's GPU performance around that of AMD's A8. It remains to be seen how well this translates into actual gaming performance though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:That's Intel's market segmentation tomfoolery that's messing with you. I decided I'd rather just get a Xeon instead of going down to an AMD machine that'd gulp up a fair bit more power and perform worse for most of my tasks throughout its life. The costs of going Xeon aren't all that terrible if you're looking for virtualization features as any bit of a concern - you should probably be on a Xeon already anyway. Then there's the HCL for VMware ESXi that bugged me and I'd want Intel NICs and server grade (haha, yeah...) SATA controllers which would raise the costs for me to get the system up to a functional level. I put together a fairly badass Xeon system with a GTX 560 and 128GB SSD (about 25% of the cost!) for about $1100 in the end and I'm fine with that cost, especially since I can write it off on my taxes anyway. That's a pretty good thought, too. I was thinking about weighing the option of going with a Xeon but I was always under the impression they were more expensive. I haven't really taken a good look at their cost now compared to the regular desktop line. If the price/features are right, I could always go with Sandy Bridge once Ivy Bridge comes out. Maybe then Sandy Bridge Xeon stuff will be cheaper and have more on-board features.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
COCKMOUTH.GIF posted:That's a pretty good thought, too. I was thinking about weighing the option of going with a Xeon but I was always under the impression they were more expensive. I haven't really taken a good look at their cost now compared to the regular desktop line. If the price/features are right, I could always go with Sandy Bridge once Ivy Bridge comes out. Maybe then Sandy Bridge Xeon stuff will be cheaper and have more on-board features.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
A Xeon E3-1230 is ~$240: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115083 2x4GB ECC DDR3 RAM ~$80: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139262 C202 motherboard (admittedly the cheapest of the bunch, but I didn't give a drat about SATA3 for my needs) $160: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182252 So comparing costs vs. a 2600k, which does get slightly better performance: $314 v. $240 = -$74 2x4GB DDR3 I just bought for $42 = +$38 H67 motherboard from Intel is $130 = +$30 ---- -$6 - oh really now? So... basically for the same costs here you trade off motherboard features, a tad bit of CPU performance (but the E3-1230 has lower idle than the i7 if power efficiency is a bigger concern like it is for me) and are locked into paying for ECC RAM that's about 80% more expensive... when it's one of the cheapest parts of a modern system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 12:13
|
|
|
Straker posted:This was one of the weirdest upgrades ever for me though, because of all the non-Intel poo poo on my motherboard combined with a PCI SATA controller, and carrying over the Windows install from my P35 motherboard. Ahhh.. Don't do this! Why wouldn't you just use Easy Transfer and then do a fresh install?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 12:57
|
|
|
coinstarpatrick posted:Ahhh.. Don't do this! Why wouldn't you just use Easy Transfer and then do a fresh install? i.e. there was no point starting with a clean install, I just tried what I had and it worked, obviously I would've reinstalled if it didn't work instead of just being like "oh well" and leaving the parts sitting there not doing anything
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:A Xeon E3-1230 is ~$240: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115083
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
Are Xeons also limited to 4 bins above their max turbo, in terms of overclocking?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Wedesdo posted:Are Xeons also limited to 4 bins above their max turbo, in terms of overclocking?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
More Ivy Bridge info from Anandtech: Here's a slide deck regarding CPU changes in Ivy Bridge Here's a slide deck regarding GPU changes in Ivy Bridge Here are a couple notes regarding overclocking changes in Ivy Bridge (slide from the CPU deck above) The Intel HD Graphics in Ivy Bridge will have full DX11 support along with GPU computing support. I'm thinking of making a thread dedicated to low power computing, specifically ARM, Atom, Bobcat, and the future Intel Haswell/Silvermont architectures, that may happen soon if I stop feeling lazy and tired.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
Those x79 boards and the memory slots  http://www.anandtech.com/show/4793/x79-motherboards-from-gigabyte-msi-at-idf-2011
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:38
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Those x79 boards and the memory slots Alereon fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Sep 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:45
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Anandtech has some IVB info God, that looks really cool. Laptops are finally catching up, I'd suspect that DOTA 2 and possibly even Crysis 2 are playable. Will Thunderbolt be standard once Ivy Bridge hits?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I think the situation is similar to that of AMD with their fusion netbooks, OEMs don't want to sell them at a competitive price because they're still able to move product and make more profits with a higher price. While Ultrabooks would take over the market at $1000, they'll still sell at >$1000, just like how Brazos netbooks would obsolete Atom netbooks at $300, but people will pay $400-450 for the superior performance. Still, it's so annoying. The Macbook Air form-factor is so obscenely awesome and literally every competitor just isn't the same. Lower screen resolution, huge bezel, thicker, glossy cheap plastic, etc
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:53
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Will Thunderbolt be standard once Ivy Bridge hits?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:54
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:It's not integrated to the 7-series chipset, no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 11:03
|
|
|
I've been thinking for awhile that it would make more sense to put Thunderbolt controllers on high-end graphics cards, since they already have multiple DisplayPort ports and more PCI-Express bandwidth than they know what to do with. It would also be a smaller percentage of the cost on a graphics card versus a motherboard, and lets you add ports to an existing system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 11:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
japtor posted:Is it still an regular optional feature like they mentioned a while back at least? (vs whatever the current situation is, which is something like "work closely with Intel and hope you get parts" outside of Apple) If you can find a supplier willing to sell you the Thunderbolt controller ICs, you can have it. Most of the stock has been eaten up by Apple for both package types (compact FBGA on the portables, larger BGAs on the iMacs/displays). Alereon posted:I've been thinking for awhile that it would make more sense to put Thunderbolt controllers on high-end graphics cards, since they already have multiple DisplayPort ports and more PCI-Express bandwidth than they know what to do with. It would also be a smaller percentage of the cost on a graphics card versus a motherboard, and lets you add ports to an existing system. Would drive up cost on the GPU because of the need for a PCIe switch IC, unless GPU maker is willing to expend die-space on that functionality. You would need to take in up to 16 lanes, and output 16 lanes + 4 lanes for that to work, using something like a PEX 8648 perhaps. Can't just arbitrarily pick off x4 worth of bandwidth from the link without silicon to support that (aforementioned need for GPU manufacturer to implement that).
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 15:12
|
|