Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

nehalem design will force power users to use extreme cpu's

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 6, 2008 12:14:24 AM

Well it looks like Intel is going to be raising prices with out actually rising prices! How? If you want a really fast system with the latest cpu's in a few months you will not be able to push the new (i7) cpu's as we have done so in the past. While the info is still low from i can figure out it does not look good for pushing $200 cpu's past the $1000 cpu speed as we do now (a $200 q6600 at 3.6ghz is (can be) faster then a 3.2ghz qx9770 at $1500).

To get 4-4.5ghz from a 3ghz cpu you need an unlocked multiplier with the new cpu call nehalem or i7. If you want 3.4+ghz you may not be able too from the locked multipler cpu.

The ddr3 will be set at 1066 and will be only overclock-able to 1333 which greatly limits overclocking of the low end cpus.

some bad rumors about locked voltage too - that easy to fix with some resistors and a soldering iron but there goes that 3 year warranty on that nice x58 mobo.

anyone add to this? i explain my cryptic post later for anyone not understanding all this!


will the 6 core xenon be unlocked?
September 6, 2008 12:31:49 AM

Thats what Id heard from a decent lead earlier. I thought it wasnt true, tho that lead may be playing ball at this point as well. Im hoping its all untrue, but evem the hard facts fit within what youre saying, I was hoping itd be more expandible/overclockable, but you may be right
September 6, 2008 12:42:59 AM

What worries me more is the lack of response to this post. Doesnt anyone actually know more to refute this? Or is it all speculation, including this?
September 6, 2008 12:57:06 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
What worries me more is the lack of response to this post. Doesnt anyone actually know more to refute this? Or is it all speculation, including this?


not to worry!

1) its friday night! i am glad some people have a real life!
2) i only posted a few mins ago - i am fishing for high level info and it may take a day

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Thats what Id heard from a decent lead earlier. I thought it wasnt true, tho that lead may be playing ball at this point as well. Im hoping its all untrue, but evem the hard facts fit within what youre saying, I was hoping itd be more expandible/overclockable, but you may be right



whats a lead? do you mean an insider?



thank you!
September 6, 2008 1:01:37 AM

Its all speculations. At the moment we simply do not have many information to confirm or refute what dragonsprayer said. Given his track record, I wouldn't put too much weight on it.

All we know so far is that QPI's base frequency is 133Mhz, according to both Tom's and Anand's. How's that related to RAM's frequency, and how is QPI's frequency calculated are still completely a mystery. Therefore it would be best to stay put and wait for more information.
September 6, 2008 1:15:39 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
What worries me more is the lack of response to this post. Doesnt anyone actually know more to refute this? Or is it all speculation, including this?


Honestly I won't be buying any 45nm CPU's as cool as the design is it doesn't serve up the performance I want in games ill be happy till 2010 when the 32nm chips come online untill then a quad is a quad and I have one.

Word, Playa.
September 6, 2008 1:16:14 AM

Yea, as Ive also heard that the 133 is somewhat adjustable, but not sure how stable it is by doing so. Im under the impression its all about that 133 freq, and how much and how stable itll be. Im thinking the ram will end up playing a lessor role, as this is a IMC design, foregoing the FSB. Yea, still to early, and Id hate to have all the fun taken out of it, meaning no speculation. Ive also heard 2 other things. Usually, Intel comes out swinging. They arent this time. Were too close to release to have not to heard more, so its either true.....or the other thing Ive heard as well is that i7 will do real well, and if announced, could derail potential Q2D sales. Not too sure about that either, as the market from the channel isnt overly large. Who knows? @ dragonsprayer yes , someone who has a lil inside info, but hes gone quiet now, so again, who knows?
September 6, 2008 1:23:41 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Its all speculations. At the moment we simply do not have many information to confirm or refute what dragonsprayer said. Given his track record, I wouldn't put too much weight on it.

All we know so far is that QPI's base frequency is 133Mhz, according to both Tom's and Anand's. How's that related to RAM's frequency, and how is QPI's frequency calculated are still completely a mystery. Therefore it would be best to stay put and wait for more information.



said like a true amd lover! lol!

lucky i have thick skin and a good lawyer!
September 6, 2008 1:34:42 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Yea, as Ive also heard that the 133 is somewhat adjustable, but not sure how stable it is by doing so. Im under the impression its all about that 133 freq, and how much and how stable itll be. Im thinking the ram will end up playing a lessor role, as this is a IMC design, foregoing the FSB. Yea, still to early, and Id hate to have all the fun taken out of it, meaning no speculation. Ive also heard 2 other things. Usually, Intel comes out swinging. They arent this time. Were too close to release to have not to heard more, so its either true.....or the other thing Ive heard as well is that i7 will do real well, and if announced, could derail potential Q2D sales. Not too sure about that either, as the market from the channel isnt overly large. Who knows? @ dragonsprayer yes , someone who has a lil inside info, but hes gone quiet now, so again, who knows?



since my predictions on amd and intel are usually dead on! unlike the amd lovers above (who i do remember slamming hard)
OK - will stick my neck out again the title is correct. THIS IS A PRICE INCREASE AND A BIG ONE! YOU HEARD IT FROM ME FIRST - I STICK TO IT!

This is a price increase aimed not only at the high end, but at mid level and mid-high level users. Intel has fully buried AMD. Intel can now raise prices to raise the stock price by increasing cpu prices. There are al ot of $2000 and $3000 system builders and buyers out there. Many of those builders use $200 or $300 cpus now. I think we see $500 cpu's, once again, in those systems just as we did back in the P4 days.

Apple will pay they own 30-50% of the high end marker now. Prices on good systems have come way down below $2000. Intel can not get more pie, with the use of low end ddr3 the cpu can get alot more of the total system pie.

losers = ddr makers, maybe gpu's too - dual crossfire and sli in the x58
winners = intel and amd, mobo makers, cpu cooler makers (hsf)

the $250 price is slotted for low bin, $500 price for mid level and $1000 for anyone who wants a performance system. The fact is with triple the memory bandwidth, $2000 to $3000 machines will have to i7 cpu's if you want the next boost or performance jump.
a c 127 à CPUs
September 6, 2008 1:39:56 AM

Um... No links for this?

All I know is this. In Phenom OCing memory plays no role in the CPUs OCing abilities.

So now that Nehalem will no longer be dependant on the FSB which was tied to the memories FSB how could it possible limit a OC?

The IMC with QPI will link tot the memory but the CPUs speed will be dependant on the multi and that 133MHz bus and not be limited to the memory.

Besides PC3 1066 offers 8.5GB/s and QPI will easily take advantage of that and memory bandwidth wont affect the overall performance on desktops.
September 6, 2008 1:44:38 AM

no links

its my best estimate based on what i read over the last 2 months - as noted above by J D

the insiders are tight lipped

intel is tight

this is a price increse and it is being slipped in slowly and quietly
September 6, 2008 2:05:45 AM

That was my first tale DS, and maybe your right. Disappointing if true. Next instead of buy a 6600 itll be buy anything, as its good enough for now. I hope those threads never take traction
September 6, 2008 2:08:51 AM

its very disappointing it looks as if the most you get is 3-3.3ghz from the $500 cpu.

if you want 4-4.5ghz or even 3.6ghz as with a q6600 now you need the extreme unlocked cpu


even though the cpu is better and makes more calcs per clock speed or is just faster as we all know 3ghz to 4ghz is 33% and that is the difference between very sponsive system and a good system.

then on the other hand, the old c2d may be just fine for most people until 2010 and the qx9650 will be $300-$400 by next feb
September 6, 2008 3:14:47 AM

i'm on wait and see mode...hehehehe i just want a low power upgradeable system pointing towards AMD 780G board and AMD X2 4850e or anything with less wattage
September 6, 2008 3:54:46 AM

Bottom line is we shouldnt have to overclock in the first place, Q6600 runs perfect stable at 3.2, 3.4 and 3.6 (anything higher and you need some serious cooling). Intel should just ship these damn chips at the maximum stable clock speed and call it a day.

To be perfectly honest I wish overclocking WOULD be thrown out the window, at least then we wont be sold a chip that is only operating at 60-75% of its potential out of the box I paid $200+ for.
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2008 4:00:19 AM

Your post makes no sense whatsoever.
September 6, 2008 4:11:50 AM

Assuming you are talking to me reynod, how do you figure? Surely you can come up with more than a one liner with no quotes?

The OP is saying we wont be able to push the "low end" (translate Q6600) procs to the performance levels of the extreme end processors (translate QX9xxx) due to this new BS, rumored. Hince the "making us spend more money" ploy. I gave my opinion on the matter saying that overclocking is BS anyways, it should not be left up to us, the people who pay hundreds for this stuff, to do the things Intel should have already done. Not only are they screwing us on this now but they are going to the next step with i7, in making sure that we cant dodge paying $1000 for high benchmarks and what not. What I said was just a comparison to what the OP said you could say.

Get all that?
September 6, 2008 4:21:53 AM

Getting a 80% oc is a lil crazy. Unlike gpus, which sell at their performance point, and are pretty much set there, with a slight nudge due to ocing, and of course, the top end gpus are no where near a cpus i n costs. I can see what you meant. I wouldnt except this as gospel, as far as i7 not being oceable tho
a c 133 à CPUs
September 6, 2008 4:32:45 AM

I thought it made perfect sense. Why must we overclock to get the best possible performance out of our expensive CPUs? Why not have systems that can read a CPU like the SPD on a RAM stick and automatically clock it to max without having to be tweaked, poked, prodded, rinse and repeat until every last MHz is wrung out of it?
Bring back the days when it was programmers writing tight, tiny code that got great performance, instead of the massive bloat we have today. Remember Borland International? Their Turbo Pascal was an entire integrated development environment that fit on one 360K floppy, and compiled code that blew the pants off Microsoft Pascal in a fraction of the size. People overclocked entirely for fun back then, not because they had to do it to get acceptable minimum performance.
September 6, 2008 4:52:49 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Getting a 80% oc is a lil crazy. Unlike gpus, which sell at their performance point, and are pretty much set there, with a slight nudge due to ocing, and of course, the top end gpus are no where near a cpus i n costs. I can see what you meant. I wouldnt except this as gospel, as far as i7 not being oceable tho


Oh I understand, like I said it was just my opinion. I believe i7 will be OC able as well, but im not expecting Q6600 percentages out of it
September 6, 2008 4:54:09 AM

Onus said:
I thought it made perfect sense. Why must we overclock to get the best possible performance out of our expensive CPUs? Why not have systems that can read a CPU like the SPD on a RAM stick and automatically clock it to max without having to be tweaked, poked, prodded, rinse and repeat until every last MHz is wrung out of it?
Bring back the days when it was programmers writing tight, tiny code that got great performance, instead of the massive bloat we have today. Remember Borland International? Their Turbo Pascal was an entire integrated development environment that fit on one 360K floppy, and compiled code that blew the pants off Microsoft Pascal in a fraction of the size. People overclocked entirely for fun back then, not because they had to do it to get acceptable minimum performance.


Exactly what I was "trying" to say. A stock Q6600 does in fact show signs of not being enough in modern games and software. But OC it to 3.6 and youve got one hell of a monster. It dosent need to be like that and Intel knows this. But the average PC user is not going to overclock, be it they dont know, restricted by crap motherboards, or too afraid too, I was too afraid too for years. This same average PC user is going to buy the Q9450 instead of the Q6600, not knowing the Q6600 can match/top it with high end overclocking, for less money.
September 6, 2008 5:14:50 AM

If the i7 can overclock (I don't see why Intel would disable overclocking, they would pretty much be sending the whole enthusiast community over to AMD), I hope the processors are more consistent than the q6600. I am only able to get mine to 3.0 GHz prime stable.
September 6, 2008 5:23:32 AM

Onus said:
I thought it made perfect sense. Why must we overclock to get the best possible performance out of our expensive CPUs? Why not have systems that can read a CPU like the SPD on a RAM stick and automatically clock it to max without having to be tweaked, poked, prodded, rinse and repeat until every last MHz is wrung out of it?
Bring back the days when it was programmers writing tight, tiny code that got great performance, instead of the massive bloat we have today. Remember Borland International? Their Turbo Pascal was an entire integrated development environment that fit on one 360K floppy, and compiled code that blew the pants off Microsoft Pascal in a fraction of the size. People overclocked entirely for fun back then, not because they had to do it to get acceptable minimum performance.


I think it is an issue with Intel being unable to guarantee for all the processors the same clock speed. Also, when the q6600 was released I don't think there were any motherboards that supported anything higher than 1333 FSB, which would be the extreme end. I doubt the q6600 would sell as well if you were required to OC your motherboard just to use it.

From a business perspective, I am thinking it is better to guarantee stability and compatibility with the market rather than selling it at highest performance. At one time it was the best CPU anyways.
September 6, 2008 5:29:39 AM

I believe I read an article awhile back stating that OCing the Nehalem on the P55/X58 is not impossible, but rather extremely difficult. The settings you have to change is numerous and getting it right is veteran level.

If these rumors are true, AMD could very well become our best friend.
September 6, 2008 6:00:32 AM

wow what a fun thread!

first off i wrote this 1.1 years ago - it says that the q6600 go is the new 4.1ghz: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/244351-28-61ghz-1ghz

Most likely very few people understood what i said as with this post. try to read this crap i write since it might actually be important!

what i said 1.1 years ago was the P4 cpu topped out at 4.0-4.5ghz with 4.1ghz being the sweet spots (all cpus are the same) - i sold 4.25ghz systems at the end of 2004. I Accurately PREDICTED A WEEK AFTER THE Q6600 G0 WAS RELEASED THAT IT WAS THE NEW LEADER at 3.6ghz comparing to THE OLD P4 - that is where p4 topped out at 4.6ghz.

i sold 4.4ghz air cooled and 4.6ghz water cooled 965 EE p4 dual core machines in 2006

OK, so what i said 1.1 years ago the new 4.1 was 3.6ghz - how right was i? anyone want to research how many people have posted 3.6ghz as the sweet spot fo the g0 quad cpu (again all cpus are basically the same - if you can get the fsb up high enough) since aug of 2007? ya i was the first?

ok lets talk about today!

You will not be able to move a cpu with the fsb, since intel is locking the memory cpu bandwidth with in a narrow region you will only get high end performance by using an unlocked cpu.

why?

intel sets their cpu's for a 7 year life span at 24/7 usage - who uses a computer 24/7 or keeps the same computer for 7-10 years? yes nobody!

intel knows that, intel knows we push cpus and they work fine - intel can not run million differnt scenarios but they can estimate 24/7 usage.


ok i am half a sleep - overclocking is nothing more then doing exactly what intel does. if you do not accept it YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT ask more questions and you will see the light!

3-4 years ago we paid $500 for the 560j to get 4.1-4.25ghz

last year we paid $225 for the q6600 g0 for 3.3-3.6ghz

next year we will pay $500 for 3.4ghz

we will pay $1000 for 4ghz water cooled nehalem


ps: while i was selling 4.1gh machines THG claimed you need liquid nitrogen - well heat pipe coolers was the only difference!

thermalright! rocks!

September 6, 2008 6:07:14 AM

Quote:
ok i am half a sleep - overclocking is nothing more then doing exactly what intel does. if you do not accept it YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT ask more questions and you will see the light!


i agree, you must be half asleep to say something like that :sleep: 
its not the speed that we want per-say but the good silicon chips that can run cooler and faster
September 6, 2008 6:15:42 AM

typerazor said:
Quote:
ok i am half a sleep - overclocking is nothing more then doing exactly what intel does. if you do not accept it YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT ask more questions and you will see the light!


i agree, you must be half asleep to say something like that :sleep: 
its not the speed that we want per-say but the good silicon chips that can run cooler and faster



ya - ok i admitt i had a few beers and its a long day!

do want good silicon - nope! you want a responsive computer! you want a multitasking beast!

you want to be able to run 4 anti sywware and anti virus programs while you game and while you im!

you do not care if is silicone or silica or silicon or for that matter gallium arsenide - i do not care if its steel package with air!

i want fast systems and i want my customers to have the fastest systems - thats what they want!

my point?

we are going to have to pay more - intel prices have been too low for years, bad management but good news for all of us!
September 6, 2008 6:18:21 AM

Like someone said earlier Intel can't guarantee that the CPUs will run at a given speed (like say the 6600 at 3.6) or if they did they'd be excluding a lot of CPUs, now of curse one could say that they could separate the CPU (like say 6600s that max at 3 at 3.2 and so on) but really how would they do it? They're obviously not gonna have a factory line of people OCing CPUS and I can't even fathom how they'd set up a machine to do it (having to take off the heatsink among other things. There's also the problem of the heatsink, certainly they're not gonna ship the base model heatsink with those things and even if you put a gigantic sticker on the box saying the thing needs a good heatsink\cooling there's bound to be an idiot out there that's gonna burn it up and sue Intel (and probly lose but w\e)

I had a few other things but they slipped my mind... anyway, it would pretty much be too much of a hassle for Intel since they'd have to manually (by hand or machine) write the frequency for each and every processor instead of having it the same.
*edit* AKA: remember how long it took before some people were able to get their hands on a 8400? yea, it would definitely have taken much longer it every CPU was custom clocked.
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2008 6:47:52 AM

While my E6600 still runs every game fine I'm not paying Intel or AMD a cent. Haswell for me!
September 6, 2008 7:18:20 AM

spathotan said:
Assuming you are talking to me reynod, how do you figure? Surely you can come up with more than a one liner with no quotes?

The OP is saying we wont be able to push the "low end" (translate Q6600) procs to the performance levels of the extreme end processors (translate QX9xxx) due to this new BS, rumored. Hince the "making us spend more money" ploy. I gave my opinion on the matter saying that overclocking is BS anyways, it should not be left up to us, the people who pay hundreds for this stuff, to do the things Intel should have already done. Not only are they screwing us on this now but they are going to the next step with i7, in making sure that we cant dodge paying $1000 for high benchmarks and what not. What I said was just a comparison to what the OP said you could say.

Get all that?


I've never liked overclocking myself. I want a CPU stable for as long as I want to keep it around. Though I like to upgrade CPU and mobo every 2-3 years, I don't want to risk having it fry on me from overclocking in my hot Central Texas townhouse. What I want is the most reliable CPU at stock clocks that I can get from AMD. Since I play games, I generally have a minimum clock that I buy at (2.4 is the minimum for a mainstream AMD dual core system right now).

Intel's never liked overclocking. Now, they're in the position with C2D that AMD was in with the first generation X2's. The base performance is quite good compared to the competition, but easy overclocking gives it a better rep. With Nehalem, Intel's returning to the P4 days business wise, but with better performance. They might very well limit overclocking on 2.66 and 3.0 parts and require "power users" to shell out $1000 or more for an EE CPU like in the Netburst days.

My disappointment with rumors is that Deneb will be 125 watts and not 95 watts. Might as well put an X3 8750 in that 780G board as it won't handle 125 watts. So, if I want 2.6 or 2.8 Deneb, I'll have to get a different board than the one waiting in my closet. Too bad the upcoming 65 watt B3's are clocked so low. It's like they think that there are just two categories of builders: those who want a low power HTPC or net surfing box vs those who don't care about power and thermals as long as they have performance.




a b à CPUs
September 6, 2008 7:22:44 AM

yipsl said:
I've never liked overclocking myself.

So much blasphemy :non: 
September 6, 2008 7:35:00 AM

Umm... the reason why Intel or AMD doesn't like OC'ing, and tried to prevent it, is that it messes with their pricing schemes. Whats the point of having low end CPU's that you can crank up to run as good as their mid to top end CPUs?

Remember the days when you had to set the multiplier by jumper? Even the FSB was set by jumper?

It even messes with major brands like dell/hp/sony prices scheme if the had the extra bios features to allow OC'ing.

And as far as power consumption, some of you guys don't really realize that the video card you put in these days (6-8 pin power) just ruins your power savings even at idle.

My E4400 is more power efficient then my old P4. The total system used to use only about 109W with a crappy video card vs my P4 that used 115-120w with the older 6800GS AGP at idle.

Now even with my E4400 running a 8800GTS that idle consumption has risen to 160w idle. So don't spew out crap about power saving especially if your using something like 3870x2 or 4870x2 on a system that uses 45w cpu. Quite frankly, the CPU really isn't the main problem in power consumption.

Hell, my Q6600 is using the other 8800GTS (G92) with a corsair 620W PSU and its idling at 150W. And I'm planning to get a 4870X2 some day.

If your really power conservative, then buy a laptop for god sakes. And run it off the battery and recharge it using solar panels.
September 6, 2008 7:36:03 AM

randomizer said:
So much blasphemy :non: 


Okay, I'll backpedal and clarify like I was a politician at a convention...

I never liked overclocking CPU's (only did it once), and never overclocked GPU's (though I buy factory overclocked when I can).

I do overclock myself, but only with caffeine. Can't remain stable after 4 cups of coffee and 4 iced coffee drinks, so have to ramp down to stock speed. Younger people I know recommend energy drinks, but those taste like bile (is that a generational thing?).

Grimmy said:
Umm... the reason why Intel or AMD doesn't like OC'ing, and tried to prevent it, is that it messes with their pricing schemes. Whats the point of having low end CPU's that you can crank up to run as good as their mid to top end CPUs?

Remember the days when you had to set the multiplier by jumper? Even the FSB was set by jumper?

It even messes with major brands like dell/hp/sony prices scheme if the had the extra bios features to allow OC'ing.

And as far as power consumption, some of you guys don't really realise that the video card you put in these days (6-8 pin power) just ruins your power savings even at idle.

If your really power conservative, then buy a laptop for god sakes. And run it off the battery and recharge it using solar panels.


I remember when CPU's were soldered onto the motherboards I bought. Yes, overclocking ruins pricing schemes, but not enough because not everyone does it. Intel's EE and AMD's FX CPU's are just ways to milk enthusiasts with too much cash and not enough real life responsibilities (I remember those days!).

My problem isn't with power consumption for the CPU's per se. I'll get a Deneb with a new board for my next build. I'd just hoped that a shrink to 45nm would allow 2.6, 2.8 and 3.0 stock clocks at 95 watt instead of 125 or 140 for the upper tier B3's. It's just when I read the leak at The Inquirer re: 125 watt Phenom that I realized I can't save that 780G board after all.

I do care about cooling, which is why I have an Antec Nine Hundred. As for laptops, hate them. Use one at work. I'm old fashioned enough to prefer a desktop with a 24" monitor over a laptop any day of the week.
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2008 7:41:45 AM

yipsl said:
I do overclock myself, but only with caffeine. Can't remain stable after 4 cups of coffee and 4 iced coffee drinks, so have to ramp down to stock speed. Younger people I know recommend energy drinks, but those taste like bile (is that a generational thing?).

I'm young and I've never had an energy drink. I don't intend to either, cappuccino for me.
September 6, 2008 7:48:44 AM

randomizer said:
I'm young and I've never had an energy drink. I don't intend to either, cappuccino for me.


Had to pull a few 12 hour days and tried a few Red Bulls, but that taurine taste just ruins it. I've been stocking up on Starbuck's Mocha, but still make pots of old fashioned Maxwell House dark roast.

One thing I never did in college was caffeine pills. Give me coffee instead.
September 6, 2008 8:01:09 AM

Well, all I'm saying about power consumption, is when you using something that is high end video card, that power saving is totally loss.

I use a P3-kill-o-watt meter and tested my E4400 system vs Q6600 system.

The Q6600 idles 10w less then my E4400 simply because the Q6600 has a better PSU efficiency, and the G92 Gpu vs the G80 Gpu. Both systems use speed step, which still offers some relief from CPU heat.

However if your talking heat, again the video card would produce the most amount heat, which again is more of the problem then the CPU.

And as far as old fashion, I am old fashion. :lol: 

I was under the impression your were more concerned with the electric bill with that 4600+ paired with 3870x2, rather then heat. So that is what provoked the thought of using a laptop. :oops: 
September 6, 2008 8:05:23 AM

Where did this paranoid fantasy come from? The evil empire (Intel ) is going to force its hapless victims to pay more for a Nehalem processor that cannot be overclocked and thus does not out-perform an overclocked Q6600?

Where are they going to find these suckers that don't bother to read reviews to see if their money will be well spent? They will have to find them among the enthusiasts, power users, and gamers that would even want the new platform, since the vast majority of computer users, that surf the net, read email, and use Quicken don't need anything faster than an E6300.

This of course will require a massive conspiracy and propaganda campaign of epic proportions. They will have to convince mobo makers, who implement the X58 chipset to go along (lest they find ways to allow overclocking in the BIOS), and retailers (like Dell) will have to agree to stop selling overclocked computers.

Yea. That will happen.
September 6, 2008 8:05:52 AM

Looking at the supposed i7 at 4ghz, thats at 1.5 volts!!!! It wont last. Im thinking if that is true, then its going to be very hard indeed to oc i7, and get it stable
September 6, 2008 8:35:55 AM

Heh.. I hate speculation. I want to see the deneb out as well as the i7 before really getting into the nitty gritty rather then just debate about something that is just not totally understood or benched in testing.
September 6, 2008 11:58:28 AM

DXRick said:

Where are they going to find these suckers that don't bother to read reviews to see if their money will be well spent? They will have to find them among the enthusiasts, power users, and gamers that would even want the new platform, since the vast majority of computer users, that surf the net, read email, and use Quicken don't need anything faster than an E6300.


Sure, the lower clocked Nehalems probably will overclock, but they might not. Where will they find these suckers? The same people who bought Intel EE Netburst CPU's instead of lower clocked CPU's. They considered themselves enthusiasts too. I read many a thread by posters with $1000 EE CPU's back in the day that really didn't perform all that well for the price paid.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2091&p=25

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2725&p=8

Nehalem Extreme Editions should do much better vis a vis lower clocked Nehalems than the ones above, and any Nehalem will do quite a bit better than an equivalent clocked Deneb, but business history shows that Intel markets EE processors that aren't all that extreme. In this next generation, they have to offer something in the extreme class that the mainstream does not have, and that might be ease of overclocking for enthusiasts.

Grimmy said:


I was under the impression your were more concerned with the electric bill with that 4600+ paired with 3870x2, rather then heat. So that is what provoked the thought of using a laptop. :oops: 


My rental townhouse has an A/C that's arctic cold and expensive. The alternative is muggy subtropical 100 F plus. That's why I went for the Antec Nine Hundred. Best case around for cooling, in my experience. So, I'm concerned about bills, but it's the A/C not the graphics card. The 3870x2 is a bit power hungry, though not in the new 4870x2's league.

Still, I'm a bit prejudiced after experiencing how well the 65 watt Windsors performed vs. the old Netburst junk I had before. I hate seeing Phenom as the new Prescott, but that's how I see it, AMD fan though I now am.
September 6, 2008 1:14:38 PM

Well with my experience in different PC cases, I must say the AEROCOOL AeroEngine pretty much impressed me, simply because it taught me more on airflow, which I did use the principles I've learned, and applied them to my CM 590. That stupid fake 140mm turbine fan, that people did bitch about (they complained that it wabbles basically :lol:  ), was the main key to my success in keeping things cool in that system, which runs my Q6600. The fake fan was basically an indicator of airflow, with the help of a fan controller.

Doing tests on my Q6600, when the ambient temp in the case reached 83-85F, with prime95 loading all cores for the FPU stress test, my Tcase temp reached 61C max on the DFI P35 MB, the fans were not on full, but I'd maybe get 1C cooler with them all turned to high. With the fans all turned low or off, it reached (flickered) 69-70F for over 20mins, which I thought was enough testing with the fans all turned down.

Now when I did the stress test when the ambient was around 75F, my Tcase read 47C (cores 4-6C higher) the majority of the time.

So one point I'd like to make is the Quad core, whether it's AMD or Intel should never reach those temps on normal operation with adequate airflow, perhaps 75F ambient temp, and that the HSF is installed properly. Of course I'm using 3rd party not the stock.

Gaming on the other hand is a different story when the GPU spits out heat, and people complain not about the heat, but the CPU cores not being utilized enough. And we are talking a bit more wattage usage on the GPU, especially if there's more then one GPU when your playing a game for a few or + hours. So I really don't see putting the hammer on TDP's when they are not expected to even be reached in normal operation.

As far as the prescott days... man I'm glad that's over. I never owned one. The Northwood core was good enough for me. :D 
a c 133 à CPUs
September 6, 2008 4:52:46 PM

I was sorely tempted to go AMD on my last personal build. It probably would have been cheaper, and certainly good enough for my apps and games. I like having a choice though, even if I don't often take it. I've been running my Q9450 at stock, which is arguably a waste of a good CPU. If I need to though, I can OC it, and probably a helluva lot farther than any AMD chip, BE or not. I haven't tested it on a Kill-A-Watt yet (I have one, just been too slack), but my APC software says I've put 81 watts on it, which includes my 22" monitor. I "only" have a 3850, but it too has been good enough. When it isn't, will I overclock it? Maybe, but probably not, because I can afford to buy a 4850 or better if I want it. I hope to make this system last for years. When I go to buy new though, if I see a Nehalem that can't be overclocked, vs. AMD that can, even if I'm not likely to do it, I'll be more inclined to buy the AMD unless the stock Intel performance is just too far superior.
September 6, 2008 6:28:54 PM

Grimmy said:
Umm... the reason why Intel or AMD doesn't like OC'ing, and tried to prevent it, is that it messes with their pricing schemes. Whats the point of having low end CPU's that you can crank up to run as good as their mid to top end CPUs?


There are at least two other reasons:

1. People overclock CPUs, burn them out, then claim they're defective and return them.

2. Disreputable dealers sell low-end CPUs as if they were higher speed parts, and then the buyer ends up with an unreliable system that they blame on the manufacturer.
a c 133 à CPUs
September 6, 2008 8:20:59 PM

Let's not get too big-headed. Dell, HP, Compaq, and other vendors sell the vast majority of CPUs, at stock, and typically to business and institutional customers. The enthusiast market, by comparison, is chump change to these guys.
September 6, 2008 10:42:14 PM

SPeaking of Dell, and reinforcing on what somebody else said above about Intel cannot guarantee all procs can hit the same speeds @ the same settings. Remember a few years ago Dell was selling a XPS with an overclocked X6800 @ 3.6ghz but had to lower it down to 3.2 since most of them were not hitting 3.6 after they started recieving chips with the new stepping. My numbers there might be off as im going by memory here, but just look the story up.
September 7, 2008 1:40:19 AM

yipsl said:
Okay, I'll backpedal and clarify like I was a politician at a convention...

I never liked overclocking CPU's (only did it once), and never overclocked GPU's (though I buy factory overclocked when I can).

I do overclock myself, but only with caffeine. Can't remain stable after 4 cups of coffee and 4 iced coffee drinks, so have to ramp down to stock speed. Younger people I know recommend energy drinks, but those taste like bile (is that a generational thing?).



I remember when CPU's were soldered onto the motherboards I bought. Yes, overclocking ruins pricing schemes, but not enough because not everyone does it. Intel's EE and AMD's FX CPU's are just ways to milk enthusiasts with too much cash and not enough real life responsibilities (I remember those days!).

My problem isn't with power consumption for the CPU's per se. I'll get a Deneb with a new board for my next build. I'd just hoped that a shrink to 45nm would allow 2.6, 2.8 and 3.0 stock clocks at 95 watt instead of 125 or 140 for the upper tier B3's. It's just when I read the leak at The Inquirer re: 125 watt Phenom that I realized I can't save that 780G board after all.

I do care about cooling, which is why I have an Antec Nine Hundred. As for laptops, hate them. Use one at work. I'm old fashioned enough to prefer a desktop with a 24" monitor over a laptop any day of the week.


yeah the first denebs might come with a 100+w tdp, but even if they do after a few months newer steppings will appear that are cooler and less power hungry. I should think a stock 2.6 deneb should be well under 125w tdp, seeing as the 9950 at 2.6ghz is 140w tdp. I'd avoid a fisrt stepping deneb and go for one of the later ones. The process will mature over time, just think where the phenoms launched at (2.3 or 2.4ghz?) topping out now at 2.6ghz. Yeah thats only 200mhz but the jump in tdp is so high for that extra clock speed that a stock clocked b3 over 2.6ghz would never sell/be sold. So i think things have a way to go even when deneb is launched. Patience brother.
September 7, 2008 7:57:06 AM

wow is thread deterioated

to the above poster who did not want to overclock there cpu and wanted stability and 2-3 life.


THE 4.25GHZ SYSTEMS I SOLD IN 2005 STILL RUN - what i mean is they are getting top level performance for the cpu and it still works.

To those who still not grasped the fact is overclocking is your best friend! i only build oc systems since 2004 - with zero cpu failures. There owners gain much better responsiveness, single app speed and more user friendly multitasking.

PEOPLE! overclocking is your friend not some wild neighbor to fear! embrace him!

ok its 3am and ready to fall over again! this thread needs to get back to nehalem!
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2008 10:48:41 AM

Cognitive dissonance ??

MY POS CPU WON'T OVERCLOCK ... therefore (in order to reduce cognitive dissonance) I (suddently) DON'T LIKE OVERCLOCKING ...

Hell ... if you can ... then do it ... If you can't then ... deal with it.

Buy a faster stock CPU and waste your money.

I think the fears about Nehalem being hard to overclock will be overcome by intrepid mobo manufacturers and their BIOS programmers anyway.


September 7, 2008 1:22:23 PM

MarkG said:
There are at least two other reasons:

1. People overclock CPUs, burn them out, then claim they're defective and return them.

2. Disreputable dealers sell low-end CPUs as if they were higher speed parts, and then the buyer ends up with an unreliable system that they blame on the manufacturer.


Well I wouldn't doubt there are perhaps some people that screw up. Although like some people said, that's perhaps less then a hand full. I haven't yet had to send a CPU back to the Intel or AMD. Nor am I crazy enough to over volt past its spec's or lap it.

So far I never seen a company that would OC low end machines to sell them. But then I've always built my own.

The only time you would have an unstable OC is those people who don't test their machines and just run it as is. You just can't push the FSB, boot in to windows, play a game, and maybe perhaps run 3dmarks and call it stable.
!