LOL, yeah, but that has to do with non-existent headroom, not the IMC. Even the many of the BE's with unlocked multipliers don't OC very far.
I'm look forward to Nehalem. I've been holding out on my S939 Opty 175 for a long time now. I think my next system will be an Nahalem, unless AMD can get its act together.
LOL, yeah, but that has to do with non-existent headroom, not the IMC. Even the many of the BE's with unlocked multipliers don't OC very far.
I'm look forward to Nehalem. I've been holding out on my S939 Opty 175 for a long time now. I think my next system will be an Nahalem, unless AMD can get its act together.
I think it'll remain as low-mid range until it does another 48xx again, which won't be soon as Deneb is only a little more than a die shrink. It might OC better tho...
How do you overclock with out a Front Side Bus? Beside more voltage.
Will Nehalem kill OCing?
Look at the CPU-Z screenie. See that 133??? You can raise that. But thats only to OC the CPU frequency to a higher speed. In order to OC the memory link you will need to OC the QuickPath and thats a whole different story. It has its own bus speed and voltage too.
You will need to learn a whole new way to OC with Nehalem. But it shall be fun. New stuff always is.
I agree that the article doesn't say much more than what we already knew, but it's not bad like the Inq or Fudzilla, because they aren't making performance claims, just presenting raw, albiet old news, facts about it.
I am a bit concerned about the reports of the very slight edge Nehalem seems to have on a roughly equivalent Core 2 in single threaded apps. It would seem to me that Nehalem should blow away a C2 even in single threads. Can anyone shed some light on that?
Judging by the very little information I've seen, Nehalem isn't a whole lot faster than a core2 in single threaded apps. The IMC and hyperthreading are the major changes in the new architecture and neither one is going to do a whole lot to help out most single threaded desktop applications.
