Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel to drop overclocking for mainstream Nehalems

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
April 23, 2008 12:43:27 AM

If there is any truth to this, it is a real slap in the face. Or a kick to the groin.

I had just gotten over the cognitive dissonance of being completely happy with my e2180 purchase after a series of Athlons--but this will push my next new system build toward AMD again.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

When you hear pundits talk about "abuse of market power" or "monopoly", this is a tangible example of what can happen. I really love my Intel, but we cannot afford to be Intel fanboys if this is what such brand loyalty (blind allegiance?) brings us. With healthy competition from AMD, a scenario like this would never happen.
April 23, 2008 1:01:36 AM

Lol, if this is true, all those people who held off buying until Nehalem comes out will be pissed. This is good, it means my currently oced quad will be useful for a longer period of time pitted against the weaker stock Nehalems. :D 
April 23, 2008 1:07:36 AM

Ahhh is it just me or does this make no sense at all..........................

Related resources
April 23, 2008 1:11:23 AM

caamsa said:
Ahhh is it just me or does this make no sense at all..........................



Sure it does. How many people buy the "extreme" version cpus for $1000+ now? And how many people will if only those are capable of overclocking? :p 
April 23, 2008 1:15:04 AM

If its true, than my QX9650 will have a good life, while those who have been saying to hold off for Nehalem will need their crying towels.

I do wonder if there might be good reason for holding off on the overclocking of Nehalem, as its a very complicated chip and may not overclock at all under any circumstance. As for Fud's statement that "a huge group of users will never be able to afford to buy an overclockable platform, from Intel", he forgets that the LGA775 platform will be around for awhile, and if Nehalem proves to be difficult, then that platform will probably live for longer than expected, and the Yorkfield chips will live as well.
April 23, 2008 1:16:25 AM

It does make sense, in a short sighted, Machiavellian kind of way:

1) AMD poses little threat, so there is little additional market share they are going to get there (i.e., exponentially more expensive to convert hardcore AMD fanboys); so
2) must maximize profitability from Intel purchasers;
3) to do so, must reduce the number of guys like me who buy an $80 processor, and overclock the heck out of it to the point where there is little reason to want to spend $175 more for a materially better (higher margin) processor.

Makes logical sense, unless it in turn converts a higher % of those who otherwise would be willing to buy the higher margin processors, to hardcore AMD fanboys. When enough of us become AMD fanboys, then it will be cheaper for them to win us back with superior, cheap high performance.

Until the equilibrium swings back in our favor (or until Intel legitimate completion from AMD), we are stuck.
April 23, 2008 1:27:03 AM

It all depends on how much more performance and price those new cpu's

offer. *If* they can get a 2.5ghz cpu to perform like an Oc'd 3.4ghz current

cpu then it might not be that bad.

As long as they keep the prices reasonable.
April 23, 2008 1:38:12 AM

dagger said:
Sure it does. How many people buy the "extreme" version cpus for $1000+ now? And how many people will if only those are capable of overclocking? :p 



Well I know AMD's cpu's have fallen behind......but they offer unlocked cpu's and they are their higher end chips (if you want to call them that) and at some point if AMD gets back on track and they continue to offer sub 200 dollar chips that have an unlocked multiplier then..............


Ahhh who cares.....................
April 23, 2008 1:57:52 AM

caamsa said:
Ahhh who cares.....................

I care, a lot. It's wonderful news. This just means longer useful lifetime for those of us who brought current generation cpus that oc, which will perform better compared to Nehalems at stock for longer. :kaola: 

This is just a guess, but it's possible that Nehalems may not oc well even if they don't block it. It's just so complicated. Intergreted too many things into the chip itself. For people like us, flexability is more important than having everything in one package. I'd rather have the choice of a separate chipset. :p 
April 23, 2008 2:01:48 AM

It's an article published by Fudzilla without source reference on a Intel processor that is predicted by Intel to be released in Q4 2008.

It's all **** to get you're panties in a knot.

April 23, 2008 2:17:08 AM

Maybe Captain Fud: Lars-Göran Nilsson, gets their source information from the THG CPU forum! :pt1cable: 

Quoting my own FUD post in the cpu forum to get knuckle heads' panties in a wad.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/249680-28-nahalem-opinions


1) Nehalem will be a big and disappointing paper launch in late September, October 2008
2) Working processors will be available to OEM in December 2008. GO DELL GO!
3) The first available processors to OEM's will be server MP using the Xeon branding.
4) The first available processors to consumers will be an Extreme Edition in January 2009 using Core 3 branding. Retail price between $1500 to $1800. Quad core at 3.2GHz.
5) The second available processors to consumers will be in March 2009 with mass availablity by June 2009 with quad core architecture without HT enabled using Core 3 Quad branding. Retail price starting at $499 for a 2.8GHz processor.
6) Windows 7 will be late. No way will Microsoft be ready for a Q4 2009 release. Intel will hold back on Nehalem higher clocked processors and Nehalem HT enabled processors will be delayed until Microsoft releases Windows 7 which we'll be lucky to see hit the consumer market in early 2011.
7) Nehalem will overclock poorly because of its new architecture. The processors built using the 32nm die shrink with the revised hyper-threading technology enabled will crash Windows 7 when the cpu is overclocked.
8) Intel doesn't give a crap about AMD today. They did give a crap about the green machine in 2000 when the one GHz clock race was on. Intel doesn't care what AMD put's out in the future because AMD is the little engine that couldn't.


April 23, 2008 2:17:43 AM

Amd has a built in memory controller and limited OC compared to Intels OCs.

Maybe Intel discovered this as well.

If they dont come with atleast a 3.0 stock clock and cant overclock at all, I doubt many will sell. Penrynns are great now, and if these new ones arent better; why upgrade?

Hopefully intel wont go a step backwards.

That would be gay to buy A new MOBO, DDR3 memory, and a Nehalem for little to no performance increase.

Only time will tell.

Technically Intel doesnt support overclocking now on non extreme CPUs. So it might be a bunch of BS since its from Fudzilla.
April 23, 2008 2:34:04 AM

I like my panties in a knot. It feels funky that way. And go Fudzilla! :na: 
April 23, 2008 2:43:50 AM

dagger said:
I like my panties in a knot. It feels funky that way. And go Fudzilla! :na: 


I don't think I needed to know that. :o  :whistle: 
April 23, 2008 6:29:49 AM

i believe ive said it before (maybe not on this forum) and i'll say it again, intel is derived from the Devil. just like m$

April 23, 2008 7:26:05 AM

Intel's are way too far over priced. I'll stick to my affordable AMD chips rather than spend 10x as much for less than 3x the performance. $1500 for a single processor is completely ridiculous this isn't the 70's any more computers shouldn't be that overpriced.
April 23, 2008 7:52:48 AM

roadtr1p said:
Intel's are way too far over priced. I'll stick to my affordable AMD chips rather than spend 10x as much for less than 3x the performance. $1500 for a single processor is completely ridiculous this isn't the 70's any more computers shouldn't be that overpriced.





I'm pretty sure you're exagerating because I can think of plenty of scenarios where that isn't the case.
April 24, 2008 12:51:07 AM

If this is true, I don't think much can be done. The OCing population is rather small, like 3% of all pc users, so I'm not sure this will effect Intel much.

This could be good news to AMD however. They can take advantage of this and continue to sell those "BE" to OCers. But then again, perhaps Intel's cpus would be so ahead of AMD that a 1GHz Intel = 10GHz AMD?

Ah well, there's always mods...
April 24, 2008 3:16:11 AM

sailer said:
If its true, than my QX9650 will have a good life, while those who have been saying to hold off for Nehalem will need their crying towels.

I do wonder if there might be good reason for holding off on the overclocking of Nehalem, as its a very complicated chip and may not overclock at all under any circumstance. As for Fud's statement that "a huge group of users will never be able to afford to buy an overclockable platform, from Intel", he forgets that the LGA775 platform will be around for awhile, and if Nehalem proves to be difficult, then that platform will probably live for longer than expected, and the Yorkfield chips will live as well.


That I have to agree with. Live on yorkfield....live on...
April 25, 2008 1:39:34 PM

what i bet my money on is that the new arch Intel preps will be a Server chip...much like Barcelona is. Those of us who aspected great things from phenom were dissapointed....so will be Intel fans....Sure it will scale better then AMD's (they had over a year and a half more 2 prepare it) Sure it will have a better IMC with DDR 3 and it will be the end of the Reign of the Opti's ...i jwst prey they learn from the mistakes AMD made and we will have a better desktop line then AMD's!!!
April 28, 2008 7:56:23 AM

WHY do they call it FUDzilla? Considering that FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

Treat anything coming off a site of that name as about as suspect as anything off the Inquirer, or off of some sharky AMD fanboy that posted here a while back.

EDIT: Read through the article - WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD INTEL BRING OUT TWO DIFFERENT SOCKETS FOR THE SAME BASIC RANGE OF PRODUCTS?

If one was in the server arena and one in the desktop, fine. But that article is implying that you will have TWO sockets for the same arena. Insane? Completely.
April 28, 2008 8:12:01 AM

And so our lord has spoken. May anybody whose say otherwise be damned.
May 1, 2008 3:02:50 PM

Mugz said:
WHY do they call it FUDzilla? Considering that FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

Treat anything coming off a site of that name as about as suspect as anything off the Inquirer, or off of some sharky AMD fanboy that posted here a while back.

EDIT: Read through the article - WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD INTEL BRING OUT TWO DIFFERENT SOCKETS FOR THE SAME BASIC RANGE OF PRODUCTS?

If one was in the server arena and one in the desktop, fine. But that article is implying that you will have TWO sockets for the same arena. Insane? Completely.


Hear hear!
a b K Overclocking
May 3, 2008 10:36:38 PM

zpyrd said:
It's an article published by Fudzilla without source reference on a Intel processor that is predicted by Intel to be released in Q4 2008.

It's all **** to get you're panties in a knot.

Agreed. Take Fudzilla articles with a grain of salt.

After all you guys do know what FUD stands for right?
June 4, 2008 8:30:04 PM

husky mctarflash said:
If there is any truth to this, it is a real slap in the face. Or a kick to the groin.

I had just gotten over the cognitive dissonance of being completely happy with my e2180 purchase after a series of Athlons--but this will push my next new system build toward AMD again.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

When you hear pundits talk about "abuse of market power" or "monopoly", this is a tangible example of what can happen. I really love my Intel, but we cannot afford to be Intel fanboys if this is what such brand loyalty (blind allegiance?) brings us. With healthy competition from AMD, a scenario like this would never happen.

not only that you must use a intel chipset as well. NVIDIA will not like that.

also the mainstream chips will use a DIFFERENT SOCKET then the Performance desktop / Extreme desktop / High-end mainstream desktop cpus.
June 4, 2008 8:41:21 PM

Joe_The_Dragon said:
not only that you must use a intel chipset as well. NVIDIA will not like that.


I really don't care about what Nvidia likes or dislikes. I care about what works. If Nehalem works, fine and good. If it doesn't work, at least not all that well, then I'd contentedly keep running my present setup for a long time. Even if Nehalem does work decently, it might be a long time before it gets cheap enough and common enough for the rest of us.
July 10, 2008 1:41:05 AM

since im a gambler i bet that they won't do it and if they do it then... F uck!.....






hail to the redskins :) 
November 3, 2008 4:57:15 AM

well F*CK YOU INTEL. looking forward to Deneb even though i know jack all about it :D 
November 3, 2008 11:51:39 AM

I've heard from an engineer at Intel that Gamers/Overclockers make up 5% of their total revenue. Big deal to them. Nehalem is oriented towards the server market. A business wouldn't plan on making the 5% happy if they also account for a very small increase in revenue. We just gotta face the facts and decide with our money what we're going to do.
November 3, 2008 1:29:17 PM

Its really about wait and see... and those that jump on the bleeding edge will likely get burned IMO. There are still a lot of questions to be answered about Nehalem. From what I have gathered Nehalem is Intel’s answer to the more popular AMD server chips (and of course the dark empires attempt to deliver the coup de grace to AMD). As a consequence of that Nehalem has smaller cache which will probably adversely effect game performance and leave Wolfdale and Yorkfield the better choice for some time to come (not to mention price/performance). Of course the folks over at Intel marketing will take full advantage of the insignificance of AMD and stick it to the consumer in the form of outrageous prices, non-overclockable chips(w/o a large premium), unnecessary multiple platforms, disabling of HT w/o a premium etc. etc. I'm sure there will also be an additional mobo premium because of new Intel patents and of course Nvidia licensing for SLI. A 4|8 core with 8|16 threads is nice but hardware is ahead of most PC software and it could be years before the majority of games and applications take advantage of more than 1-2 threads even with forced affinity. I still have not seen a true answer to the memory voltage limitations of Nehalem. Until the memory manufacturers can pull it out your going to use slower DDR3 in a new platform? Of course those enthusiasts that bought high voltage performance DDR3 (i.e. DDR3 2000) will get burned (not to mention needing a 3rd stick for 3 way). Although Nvidia has been rumoured to be getting out of the chipset business Intel can now monopolize the Intel chipset business even further with new patents and licensing requirements.

The way I see it the biggest advantage of Nehalem is in hopefully forcing down prices of Wolfdale and Yorkfield. I'm perfectly happy with the performance of my Wolfdale and I will likely extend the systems life later on with a cheaper high end Yorkfield. Perfect example of Intel's monopolistic spite towards enthusiasts/OC'ers is the Q9650 vs QX9650. Same chip, same cache but double the price for one because it is unlocked. I just hope Intel continues to crank up Yorkfield. I'll probably buy one if they hit 3.16 or 3.33 for non-extreme and the price is right. What we really need is for AMD to pull their head out of their aho and give Intel some competition. Barring that Intel needs a good smack in the head from Justice in the form of another anti trust lawsuit.
November 3, 2008 2:24:29 PM

Quote:
(and of course the dark empires attempt to deliver the coup de grace to AMD).


Intel has no need or desire to kill off AMD. To do so would invite congressional hearings and possible indictments, especially with the likely incoming new administration
November 4, 2008 7:49:35 AM

^and neither do we. monopolies FTL.
!