|
Any word on actual availability of Dell/HP 3820QM or 3720QMs for the EliteBook/Precision lines. I have an approved purchase order from work, but am beginning to really hate my Core2 P8600.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Welcome to the 4P tax. There is no reason to buy the 4P chip if you don't want to run it in a 4socket system.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Apparently IVY-E is soldered to the IHS. Yay. Ivy-E vs Haswell-E what does 1 year buy you given that we have already seen that haswel is very  relative to Ivy?Let me restate, how big of a deal are the new transaction and other instructions to desktop, virtualization sandboxes, and video encoding? It seems that much of the new architecture is based around feature sets rather than pure performance. If I recall, it can take some years before you see developers incorporate the new instructions. KennyG fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jun 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
Ivy-E launch of October? that mean October availability of likely more like December like the last 2?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:I'd prefer October/November with 6/8 core CPUs, but it looks like I may have been conflating the 6/8 core stuff with Haswell-E (due out sometime in 2014 and, I'd say, 100% worth waiting for over Ivy Bridge-E). Care to share why? TSX? is it really that big a deal unless you are running a database server? I've heard some people talk about this lately, but I can't really figure out why someone would really care that much? Fake Edit: 33% more cores and DDR4. Ok, I'll buy that argument. Can someone please explain why someone not doing HFT or similar would care about TSX?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Well, from the standpoint of market penetration of a Good Idea, it's pretty dumb to cut off ISA improvements from people just for the purposes of market segmentation. Will go far!... to making many apps that *could* benefit from TSX not do so until it's switched on for more users. And helps nobody. I agree with you about the idea that instruction sets should not be a segmenting factor in most cases, especially not in the minor sku things like -R vs -K vs stock etc (xeon vs i3/5/7, may be different). However, given that the -E chips don't suffer from that I think you misinterpreted my question. Ivy Bridge doesn't have TSX, so Ivy-E vs Haswell-E doesn't need to worry about market segmentation preventing future adoption (especially due to the substantially small market of the -E chips.) I want to know why anyone would want/need (in concrete terms) a TSX enabled chip. Sell the feature as if I were a college freshman, or worse a CEO. There are costs associated with getting a TSX chip, and at this point other than High Freq Trading, I can't come up with a use case that substantially benefits from it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
cycleback posted:I am software license limited and would prefer fewer cores with higher clock speeds, i.e the E5-1600 series. This brings up an interesting (and often overlooked) thorn in Intel's side. It's no secret that about 8-10 years ago, Intel realized they were approaching a diminishing return problem with processor efficiency on a per-core basis. Obviously, they went multi-core. The problem is that a lot of the licensing is making you pay dearly for the privilege. In the enterprise space, the vendors who licensed based on ability usually did it by processor count/architecture (see Oracle). With the proliferation of multi-core chips, most vendors have stayed with a core definition of processor rather than the socket definition that most people think of as a processor. As core count sky-rockets in the next 10-20 years in a search to find more computing power, the software companies licensing methodology present a serious challenge to Intel's adoption rate and their bottom line. Oracle's enterprise licensing model is $47,500 * cores * architecture multiplier. Oracle's x86 multiplier has been .5 for years. Today a 2 socket, 8 core xeon will cost you $10k in hardware but $47,500 * 16 * .5 in Oracle DB licensing or almost $400,000 (plus ~$100k a year in 'maintenance') Heaven help us! It will be interesting to see when/if Intel starts putting on the full court press to get the big vendors to relax their core pricing and move back to a socket based model.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Looking to build a new system with 4 or 6 hyper-threading cores with more L3 cache, but don't also want to pay as much for the The 4960 is slated to release as early as my birthday. I'm going to take it as a sign from the universe that I should plunk down  x100 and buy one! More seriously, the 4930 actually may be a worth while step up for a few extra $$$ Coming from a stock Q9550, Good upgrade? (30% VMWorkstation work, 50% transcoding, 10% compiling, 10% other) Also, is there any chance I can get more than 32GB ram by stepping up to a i7-49xx (ivy-e) rather than a 4770. I am forever juggling vms.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 01:54
|
|
IHS gap of the 4770K? Well, has Intel got the deal for you!
|
necrobobsledder posted:Ark says max is 32GB on an i7-4900MQ and the HQ variant, http://ark.intel.com/products/75131 I don't want to get in a pissing contest over this, but just because it doesn't fit your usage model doesn't mean it isn't a viable requirement. Look, I'm not pissed that consumer grade Haswell didn't up the memory threshold, but if you're going to pay $600-$1000 plus ~$350+ for a mobo for a higher end processor for specific use cases, let people add more than some token amount of ram. I can't put my work datasets "in the cloud" and even if I did, by that time, I'm paying through the nose for them. To run just 4x8GB VMs I'm looking at ~$2/hr. That's ~$20 day. $~400/mo or $4,800yr. Yea, no thanks. You can run your cloud/ondemand all you want, but owning the hardware still gives me more flexibility/control and a mostly fixed cost, not to mention that the licensing is more straight forward as RHEL and most other products are licensed by processor core/socket now. This means I can all-you-can-eat rather than getting billed by the proc/hr the way Amazon does it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
SRQ posted:The Pentium brand is truly dead then, I find it kinda hilarious that it's fallen so far. Really, 20 years is a pretty good run. I'm actually kind of shocked it made it this long. Pentium as a very interesting marketing story that is often shared with college marketing classes, usually in the context of being the antithisis of the Chevy Nova. Wikipedia posted:The original Pentium branded CPUs were expected to be named 586 or i586, to follow the naming convention of previous generations (286, i386, i486). However, as the company wanted to prevent their competitors from branding their processors with similar names, as AMD had done with their Am486, Intel attempted to file a trademark on the name in the United States, only to be denied because a series of numbers was not considered distinct. I kind of wish they had proceeded one more generation so we could have gotten to the Pentium V (Inception inside!) It's taken a lot of time but their i3/i5/i7 XXXX-y scheme is starting to make sense. Here's hoping they don't reboot it now that we have all had a moderate chance to figure out what the gently caress we're buying.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
Fair enough, but I would point out that few people compare a mac book air to OMGWTFBBQFPS gaming rig. In comparing within a product segment, it generally works or at least can be helpful to know that an i7 in an ultra-portable is going to be better than an i5 in an ultra-portable. Yes an i7-4600M is likely going to get crushed by a i5-4570S but the fact that one is a desktop chip and one is a laptop chip should have already made that very apparent. As mobile is almost never DIY, you can easily compare like products from toshiba, sony, dell, hp etc with i3-4100M, i5-4200M, i5-3750M and i5-4570T and know which one is the fastest and who is trying to hide last gen tech in there. It's a lot easier to look at 1xxx 2xxx 3xxx 4xxx and figure out which architecture I want vs having to remember that Conroe came before Westmere but after Prescot (  )
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
I admit to not watching the laptop market but when did it become near impossible to configure your laptop. I would love a 13-14" Haswell i5+ with 16GB of ram and an SSD. Why is that so much to ask? In a perfect world, I'd want the above in a package delivered by Apple but I figure that Dell/HP/Toshiba/Lenovo should be able to check those boxes pretty easily. But Nope. Is this some sort of staggered roll out bullshit? What gives?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Fair enough, I'll bring it over there. It just looks to be Haswell related. I figured it might be some tomfoolery with contracts related to vendors not allowed to provide haswell in non-standard configurations as computers seem to be headed back to the appliance days rather than the customized tools they once were.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:'worse'?  
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 21:21
|
|
