Intel notified its partners that it will soon discontinue the i7-740QM and i7-840QM processors.
Intel Phases Out Remaining Nehalem Processors : Read more
Intel Phases Out Remaining Nehalem Processors : Read more
- Status
tomsreader
Honorable
- May 1, 2012
- 25
- 0
- 10,540
Netherscourge
Distinguished
- May 26, 2009
- 390
- 0
- 18,780
Why discontinue a perfectly awesome CPU line?
I'm not upgrading to Ivy Bridge. There's no reason to.
Intel needs to acknowledge that some people don't want to upgrade their CPU or MOBOs every year.
I'm on a 4-year cycle myself. I went from an Athlon X2 64 4400 to a Core i7 two years ago. BF3 runs perfectly on it and I'm not upgrading until maybe Unreal 4 games start coming out.
I'm not upgrading to Ivy Bridge. There's no reason to.
Intel needs to acknowledge that some people don't want to upgrade their CPU or MOBOs every year.
I'm on a 4-year cycle myself. I went from an Athlon X2 64 4400 to a Core i7 two years ago. BF3 runs perfectly on it and I'm not upgrading until maybe Unreal 4 games start coming out.
[citation][nom]tomsreader[/nom]here's an idea, phase out the currently hot ivb and release the cool version of it...[/citation]
It is only hot if you overclock it. Ivy Bridge is good. It might not be as great as SB one year ago. Ivy Bridge is great for laptops and tablets. Next year Haswell chip will be great for desktop since it is a tock.
It is only hot if you overclock it. Ivy Bridge is good. It might not be as great as SB one year ago. Ivy Bridge is great for laptops and tablets. Next year Haswell chip will be great for desktop since it is a tock.
SteelCity1981
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2010
- 1,129
- 0
- 19,310
I thought intel already did phase out Nehalem a while ago, but i guess not. Sandy Bridge prob next year at some time to too will hear that Intel will be phasing it out as well it's just a processors lifecycle. Though Nehalem brought some pretty big changes to Intel processors like an intergrated memory controller a unified quad core design on a single chip and L3 shared chace still used today in the current intel cpus. Nehalem was a great chip for its time and still is a pretty solid chip that can perform just about anything you throw at it to this day.
[citation][nom]Netherscourge[/nom]Why discontinue a perfectly awesome CPU line?I'm not upgrading to Ivy Bridge. There's no reason to.Intel needs to acknowledge that some people don't want to upgrade their CPU or MOBOs every year.[/citation]
I don't buy a new CPU every year, not even close. Yet I have nothing wrong with them improving year after year so I get the most bang for my buck when I do upgrade.
Also, Ivy Bridge doesn't require a motherboard update.
I don't buy a new CPU every year, not even close. Yet I have nothing wrong with them improving year after year so I get the most bang for my buck when I do upgrade.
Also, Ivy Bridge doesn't require a motherboard update.
[citation][nom]Netherscourge[/nom]Why discontinue a perfectly awesome CPU line?I'm not upgrading to Ivy Bridge. There's no reason to.[/citation]
I came from a Core i7-920 to a Core i7-3770K just last week. Had been running the 920 since the day it came out. Definitely a beast of a CPU and I don't plan on getting rid of it any time soon. It'll serve me well in a backup machine.
I came from a Core i7-920 to a Core i7-3770K just last week. Had been running the 920 since the day it came out. Definitely a beast of a CPU and I don't plan on getting rid of it any time soon. It'll serve me well in a backup machine.
Still chugging along on an ole' Q6600...
My pappy is plenty satisfied chugging along on his ole' Q8200...
Just bought a brand new A8 based Laptop...
Its all about the SSDs...
As a consumer (i.e. someone who does not use their system for content creation) once Quad Core processors and SSDs both became affordable, and once Windows 7 came out, the average consumer has switched from a 'IT' upgrade model of 'replacing all systems every 18 to 36 months', to an 'Automotive' cycle of 'replace it when it breaks'.
Games are designed to work for the lowest common denominator to appeal to as many potential buyers as possible, and online content is still quite usable so long as you have 4 cores. When you have 4 cores and an SSD, you don't worry about having antivirus software running and killing performance in the background.
As a side note: The 1st generation Intel i-series chips were very underwhelming to me. Not until Sandy Bridge did I see palpable performance gains on content consumption, and further, only the balance afforded by both the new Ivy Bridge and AMD's Llano make any sense for the average consumer, with the former being more than twice as expensive...
I can't see myself recommending anything but APUs for the average content consumer for the foreseeable future...
My pappy is plenty satisfied chugging along on his ole' Q8200...
Just bought a brand new A8 based Laptop...
Its all about the SSDs...
As a consumer (i.e. someone who does not use their system for content creation) once Quad Core processors and SSDs both became affordable, and once Windows 7 came out, the average consumer has switched from a 'IT' upgrade model of 'replacing all systems every 18 to 36 months', to an 'Automotive' cycle of 'replace it when it breaks'.
Games are designed to work for the lowest common denominator to appeal to as many potential buyers as possible, and online content is still quite usable so long as you have 4 cores. When you have 4 cores and an SSD, you don't worry about having antivirus software running and killing performance in the background.
As a side note: The 1st generation Intel i-series chips were very underwhelming to me. Not until Sandy Bridge did I see palpable performance gains on content consumption, and further, only the balance afforded by both the new Ivy Bridge and AMD's Llano make any sense for the average consumer, with the former being more than twice as expensive...
I can't see myself recommending anything but APUs for the average content consumer for the foreseeable future...
halcyon
Splendid
- Dec 4, 2004
- 5,566
- 0
- 25,810
[citation][nom]Netherscourge[/nom]Intel needs to acknowledge that some people don't want to upgrade their CPU or MOBOs every year.[/citation]
...and just how would you have Intel acknowledge this? Also, many enthusiasts do upgrade annually (if not more often). I'd imagine those enthusiasts are glad that Intel keeps vectoring new CPUs towards us.
...and just how would you have Intel acknowledge this? Also, many enthusiasts do upgrade annually (if not more often). I'd imagine those enthusiasts are glad that Intel keeps vectoring new CPUs towards us.
[citation][nom]tomsreader[/nom]here's an idea, phase out the currently hot ivb and release the cool version of it...[/citation]
I don't see what the fuss is about with Ivy Bridge being too hot. With a Corsair H100, my 3770K idles at 18c and maxes out at full load in the mid 30s. That's a lot better than any other modern, high-end Intel CPU I have used with liquid cooling.
I don't see what the fuss is about with Ivy Bridge being too hot. With a Corsair H100, my 3770K idles at 18c and maxes out at full load in the mid 30s. That's a lot better than any other modern, high-end Intel CPU I have used with liquid cooling.
LOL, why don't people ever read. These are MOBILE parts, not desktop parts. You aren't upgrading your laptop anyway outside of adding new memory or a new hard drive. You certainly aren't doing CPU upgrades on your laptop. As for IvyBridge, it is WAY faster than old school Nahelem. Look at the mobile IvyBridge review out today from Toms. It is quite a compelling processor. SandyBridge is probably out in a year as well as Haswell and Ivy will be the CPUs of choice on the Intel side.
to me Ivy Bridge gen 1 was mainly aimed at low power consumption and thusly the mobile market so it isn't that much of a performance increase as all the reviewers said and even Intel said prior to its launch as this is a "tick" in their release pattern not a "tock" thus the performance isn't the main focus in Ivy Bridge but the size of the die.
Agreeing with jacobdrj up above that if you already have a quad core CPU and a SSD then it will not make sense to upgrade until there is something which actually uses that kind of computing power in the avg consumer market though everything which i see coming out are console ports which is a few generations behind any desktop aimed games for video games.
To disagree with jocobdrj there is a major reason to upgrade from a Q6600 to a more morden CPU if you are doing video/audio editing, content creation, playing lag sensetive video games, data manipulation, compileing of programs, and/or any other computing heavy task.
People actually do do programming on laptops so the point for the disagree is valid but the compileing is most likely sent to a stand alone sever and/or a clustered sever/sever farm with the compiled version sent back to the cleint on the laptop so the laptop only has to be able to run the program not render and/or compile massive amounts of data unless the user is stupid and didn't realize that a laptop isn't built for rendering and/or compiling programs and tried to do that as those are applications for desktops, workstations and severs.
My personal opinion is why did Intel take so long to stop making these parts as 45nm is a kinda old manufacturing process even though the static ram for L1 and L2 cache is still in 90nm manufacturing basicly becuase cross talk and modifing L1 and L2 cache die size doesnt make as big of head lines as modifing core die size even though making the static ram size smaller will speed up both the physical and the virtual core speeds on the Intel CPUs.
Thus i will like to see Intel work not on the core die size for now but on the L1 and L2 manufacturing processes so they can put more of the other parts into the CPU thus having a faster CPU then before if they just shink the L1 and L2 manufacturing process if prosiable which i hope it is but it probably will require moveing around where it is and also using that 3D design to prevent cross talk with the L1 and L2 cache so they could shink it it would also take up less power if they did shink it
Agreeing with jacobdrj up above that if you already have a quad core CPU and a SSD then it will not make sense to upgrade until there is something which actually uses that kind of computing power in the avg consumer market though everything which i see coming out are console ports which is a few generations behind any desktop aimed games for video games.
To disagree with jocobdrj there is a major reason to upgrade from a Q6600 to a more morden CPU if you are doing video/audio editing, content creation, playing lag sensetive video games, data manipulation, compileing of programs, and/or any other computing heavy task.
People actually do do programming on laptops so the point for the disagree is valid but the compileing is most likely sent to a stand alone sever and/or a clustered sever/sever farm with the compiled version sent back to the cleint on the laptop so the laptop only has to be able to run the program not render and/or compile massive amounts of data unless the user is stupid and didn't realize that a laptop isn't built for rendering and/or compiling programs and tried to do that as those are applications for desktops, workstations and severs.
My personal opinion is why did Intel take so long to stop making these parts as 45nm is a kinda old manufacturing process even though the static ram for L1 and L2 cache is still in 90nm manufacturing basicly becuase cross talk and modifing L1 and L2 cache die size doesnt make as big of head lines as modifing core die size even though making the static ram size smaller will speed up both the physical and the virtual core speeds on the Intel CPUs.
Thus i will like to see Intel work not on the core die size for now but on the L1 and L2 manufacturing processes so they can put more of the other parts into the CPU thus having a faster CPU then before if they just shink the L1 and L2 manufacturing process if prosiable which i hope it is but it probably will require moveing around where it is and also using that 3D design to prevent cross talk with the L1 and L2 cache so they could shink it it would also take up less power if they did shink it
SteelCity1981
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2010
- 1,129
- 0
- 19,310
The thing is you get what you need not what's out there because if you get something you don't need that would be like buying a super car and never going past the 70mph speed limit. Sure it's nice and flashy, but if you aren't ever going to use it fully for it's intended prupose then you just wasted your money.
[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Still chugging along on an ole' Q6600...My pappy is plenty satisfied chugging along on his ole' Q8200...Just bought a brand new A8 based Laptop...Its all about the SSDs...As a consumer (i.e. someone who does not use their system for content creation) once Quad Core processors and SSDs both became affordable, and once Windows 7 came out, the average consumer has switched from a 'IT' upgrade model of 'replacing all systems every 18 to 36 months', to an 'Automotive' cycle of 'replace it when it breaks'. [/citation]
Switching to it?
In my experience - gamers aisde, who end up upgrading components on a faster cycle, typically - consumers (not businesses) upgrade "when it breaks" (or "when things finally won't run") now. I run into single-core, sub-1 Gb RAM machines running (or trying to ) XP all the time. Why are they still using it even though you can get a $300-400 desktop that'd blow it away? "It still works" for web browsing/email/etc.
For most consumers, they treat PCs not like business components but like appliances. They bought their toaster or microwave 10 years ago and it works, when it breaks, they'll throw it out. Same with their PC.
Switching to it?
In my experience - gamers aisde, who end up upgrading components on a faster cycle, typically - consumers (not businesses) upgrade "when it breaks" (or "when things finally won't run") now. I run into single-core, sub-1 Gb RAM machines running (or trying to ) XP all the time. Why are they still using it even though you can get a $300-400 desktop that'd blow it away? "It still works" for web browsing/email/etc.
For most consumers, they treat PCs not like business components but like appliances. They bought their toaster or microwave 10 years ago and it works, when it breaks, they'll throw it out. Same with their PC.
[citation][nom]tomsreader[/nom]here's an idea, phase out the currently hot ivb and release the cool version of it...[/citation]
That is physically impossible... The trigate process makes the length and width substantially smaller but the height actually sees a slight increase. Because of this, there is less surface area which makes it harder to cool. The transistors do use less power but it is more difficult to dissipate the heat caused by their power consumption. One other consideration that I would like to see tested, is that the transistors may actually have a higher max operating temperature because of the new process.
That is physically impossible... The trigate process makes the length and width substantially smaller but the height actually sees a slight increase. Because of this, there is less surface area which makes it harder to cool. The transistors do use less power but it is more difficult to dissipate the heat caused by their power consumption. One other consideration that I would like to see tested, is that the transistors may actually have a higher max operating temperature because of the new process.
SteelCity1981
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2010
- 1,129
- 0
- 19,310
[citation][nom]webbwbb[/nom]That is physically impossible... The trigate process makes the length and width substantially smaller but the height actually sees a slight increase. Because of this, there is less surface area which makes it harder to cool. The transistors do use less power but it is more difficult to dissipate the heat caused by their power consumption. One other consideration that I would like to see tested, is that the transistors may actually have a higher max operating temperature because of the new process.[/citation]
That wrong trigate as nothing to do with ir bwing harder to cool. Intel used thermal paste on Ivy Bridge instead of soldering on the heatsheld like in year past for cost cutting messures which is why temps are higher under Ivy Bridge than on Sandy Bridge.
That wrong trigate as nothing to do with ir bwing harder to cool. Intel used thermal paste on Ivy Bridge instead of soldering on the heatsheld like in year past for cost cutting messures which is why temps are higher under Ivy Bridge than on Sandy Bridge.
[citation][nom]tomsreader[/nom]here's an idea, phase out the currently hot ivb and release the cool version of it...[/citation]
Mobile processors typically don't come with a die cover due to the shortage of space in laptops. In desktops, that's a different story.
Mobile processors typically don't come with a die cover due to the shortage of space in laptops. In desktops, that's a different story.
thrasher32
Distinguished
- Sep 17, 2007
- 375
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Still chugging along on an ole' Q6600...My pappy is plenty satisfied chugging along on his ole' Q8200...Just bought a brand new A8 based Laptop...Its all about the SSDs...As a consumer (i.e. someone who does not use their system for content creation) once Quad Core processors and SSDs both became affordable, and once Windows 7 came out, the average consumer has switched from a 'IT' upgrade model of 'replacing all systems every 18 to 36 months', to an 'Automotive' cycle of 'replace it when it breaks'. Games are designed to work for the lowest common denominator to appeal to as many potential buyers as possible, and online content is still quite usable so long as you have 4 cores. When you have 4 cores and an SSD, you don't worry about having antivirus software running and killing performance in the background. As a side note: The 1st generation Intel i-series chips were very underwhelming to me. Not until Sandy Bridge did I see palpable performance gains on content consumption, and further, only the balance afforded by both the new Ivy Bridge and AMD's Llano make any sense for the average consumer, with the former being more than twice as expensive...I can't see myself recommending anything but APUs for the average content consumer for the foreseeable future...[/citation]
I'm with ya, still running a Q9450/Radeon HD4590 from 2008, and although I have the money to upgrade, I don't really have a good reason to, everything runs fine, including the most current games. I kinda wish the system would fail (gracefully) so I have a reason to build a new rig.
I'm with ya, still running a Q9450/Radeon HD4590 from 2008, and although I have the money to upgrade, I don't really have a good reason to, everything runs fine, including the most current games. I kinda wish the system would fail (gracefully) so I have a reason to build a new rig.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Tried moving SSD from old PC to new one, now it won't boot from either
- Started by scyer327
- Replies: 8
-
Question why my pc dont have sound after install new Nvidia GPU Card?
- Started by sudsaviour
- Replies: 2
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 10
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram