What do you think of the fully locked Sandy Bridge CPUs?

In case you haven't heard, Intel plans to release most Sandy Bridge processors with basically all overclocking functionality locked out (BLCK & Multiplier).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871 [...] in-a-row/5

Would you even consider buying a processor that couldn't be overclocked? If the only Intel processors that could be overclocked were much more expensive, would you buy an AMD processor instead?


Answers 1-4
Question: If only the i5-655k, i7-875k and i7-980x could be overclocked,

Answers 5-8
Question: Which processor do you have now?

Answers 9-10
Question: Do you overclock your processor?

I really don't think Intel has been underclocking their CPUs to make it seem like we are getting more than we pay for by overclocking them; I don't think Intel's marketing department cares that much about the enthusiast, overclocking community at all. It's only a small fraction of the market. Intel started underclocking its processors so that it could sell the same processors at different price levels, assuming (correctly) most customers would never overclock.

All of these new locked processors will be sold underclocked, and there won't be anything you can do about it. If the prices go down to reflect that, I won't have any problem with it, but I don't expect that they will. The processors won't cost any less for Intel to manufacture. I like getting more than what I pay for.

Do you know something we don't here ??

Troll Poll

You gotta pay the troll toll to get into that boy's hole,
you gotta pay the troll toll to get in.
You want that baby boy's hole,
you come and pay the troll toll,
you gotta pay the troll toll to get in.

Troll toll!

I'm not a big overclocker, so I would just look at what CPU provides the best bang for the buck regardless of overclocking capabilities. I currently have an old Socket 939 Athlon X2 64, which runs at stock because it does not overclock very well and the ~15% overclock it can manage is not worth the "was that a bug in a program or is the CPU unstable?" you get when running an overclocked CPU.

No really, Intel has said that they will offer a refresh for LGA1366 based on 32nm. It wouldn't make make sense not to, considering they do have 32nm LGA1366 Xeon CPUs already available: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47925 . The entire Xeon 56xx CPUs are 32nm.

I will try and find the link to this. Think it may have been on XS or bit tech.

edit:

Found it: http://bit.ly/9RpN4O
Had to use bit.ly due to the insane length of the link
See slide #4 (attached image for convenience):

This is not a major change, but 32nm should provide for more OCing,etc. As long as I can get a LGA1366 32nm CPU for ~$250-350 (and hopefully 6C/12T) that could rival/beat/keep up with BD/SB I think I'll just grab the 32nm refresh instead of shelling out for a new board + CPU depending on cost of a new board + CPU for SB/BD. Acording to this, we should have a 32nm i7 soon on LGA1366.

edit2:
I think with the arrival of SB, it will be the end of our ability to OC the $hit out of a $70 CPU (ie E2180,etc) on the Intel side.

I think that's a pretty tall order considering the cheapest hexacore i7 is ~$900 now. A 32nm hexacore i7 on LGA1366 would also steal away a lot of LGA2011's thunder. I don't think Intel will bother because there is no competition for the hexacore i7s that are already out there, and Bulldozer won't show up until around the same time as LGA2011.

^ Exactly. If BD performs well against the current 6 core Intel CPUs I can see Intel slashing prices down quite a bit to just take market share from AMD. Remember, if Intel wanted to do a price war on all it's products, AMD would be history. Intel is sitting on a pretty big pile of money even after they bought Infineon & McAfee.

Don't get me wrong; I think it would be awesome. I just don't think it would make sense from a marketing standpoint.

There are LGA1366 32nm Xeons because in multi-CPU server setups AMD can actually compete with the performance of hexacore i7s. That simply isn't the case with desktop processors. The need for efficiency also isn't as great.

We haven't seen any samples. If these chips were coming before Sandy Bridge, you would think that we would have heard something.

I would be surprised if Intel is short of things to produce at 32nm yet (based on the reports of shortages of Arrandale CPUs that lasted into late April). Once Sandy Bridge arrives early Q1 they should be swamped again.

Sandy Bridge is basically going to make Bloomfield redundant. Why introduce a inferior, competing product?

Bulldozer isn't scheduled to arrive until the middle of 2011, maybe a few or a couple months before LGA2011. Intel and the market won't have very much time to react.

Just because Intel is washing itself in a bathtub filled with Benjamins doesn't mean that they are going to get generous. AMD doesn't want to get into a serious price war either because they still aren't in the greatest situation financially. I think we are going to see more of a standoff than a sell-off.

Intel couldn't really counter AMD on 45 nm since LGA1366 can only realistically handle one die per socket. Intel is also realistically limited to four cores per socket on LGA1366 on the 45 nm process since their 45 nm Nehalem-EX six-core units are clocked lower than AMD's 12-core units for the same power envelope (105-watt six-core Xeon E7540 @ 2.00/2.26 GHz vs. 115-watt 12-core Opteron 6174 @ 2.20 GHz.) There's no way they are going to win that battle as the Opterons would be considerably faster and less expensive due to smaller dies (the Nehalem-EX's die is about 650 mm^2 compared to Magny-Cours dies being ~350 mm^2 each.) However, going to 32 nm allowed Intel to make a 95-watt Xeon X5670 @ 2.933/3.333 GHz with a die size under 300 mm^2 that can rival the Magny-Cours.

Desktop is a different story as desktop workloads are not nearly as heavily threaded as server workloads are, with quite a few desktop workloads still being single-threaded. Few desktop programs benefit very much from more than three cores today, so desktop performance pretty much depends on how fast an individual core is. Power usage isn't nearly as much of an issue as you have fewer cores in desktop machines and can afford to have more complex cores and clock them high. Intel's Nehalem is somewhat faster core-for-core and clock-for-clock than AMD's K10. Intel can sit on 45 nm on the desktop until either programs on the desktop become more multithreaded and AMD's inexpensive six-cores start to notably outperform Intel's quads, AMD rolls out 32 nm and gooses clock speeds enough that Intel needs to move to 32 nm to keep up, or AMD's new Bulldozer core is faster core-for-core than Nehalem and Intel needs more clock speed and cache than they can get with 45 nm to beat it.

Sure we have, the i7 970 and 980X. Gulftown is what's going to replace Nehalem on LGA1366, if Intel decides to replace Nehalem rather than just EOLing LGA1366 without releasing anything on 32 nm for it besides Xeon 5600s and a few expensive six-core i7s. You can bet the quad-core units on LGA1366 are going to be just like the quad-core Xeon 5600s- a six-core die with two cores shut off. I doubt Intel would go through the trouble of making a unique die mask for a native 32 nm quad-core for LGA1366 when they know Sandy Bridge is right around the corner and LGA1366 will be EOLed.

I heard Intel had trouble with 32 nm in the beginning, which is why they limited it to some very small dual-core CPUs and some very high-dollar server CPUs. I bet now the lack of 32 nm mainstream parts is because they're starting to make some Sandy Bridge-based parts. The LGA1155-based parts are supposed to ship Q4 of this year and it's Q3 right now, so they better have at least some cooking in the fabs if they are going to have anything except a paper launch.

The LGA1155-based Sandy Bridge units are a replacement for LGA1156-based systems. They won't make Bloomfield/Gulftown on LGA1366 any more redundant than the current LGA1156 i7s make the LGA1366 i7s redundant. The replacement for LGA1366 is LGA2011, which is supposed to be introduced in Q3-Q4 2011, so there is plenty of time to introduce 32 nm Gulftown derivatives on LGA1366.

It will all depend on how fast Bulldozer is in comparison to Sandy Bridge. I believe Intel has already committed themselves to what Sandy Bridge is at this point as I doubt they have enough time to revise much of the chips between when Bulldozer probably will launch and when the high-end Sandy Bridge units will launch. About the only things they'll be able to change will be pricing. It seems like what you see with the LGA1155 units, you'll see with the LGA2011 units, but just more of it. Sandy Bridge is also a "tick," so Intel will be about two years away from being able to really give a good answer to Bulldozer if Bulldozer is grossly faster than Sandy Bridge. Thus Intel must be hoping Sandy Bridge matches up well with Bulldozer, else they're in for a couple of bumpy years until their big uarch redesign in Haswell comes out in 2013.

^ You DO realize that the only thing stopping Intel from really taking over or even buying (merging?) AMD are Anti trust laws, shareholders, etc. Yes, Intel has been in the wrong side of the law. Intel WILL loose money in the short run if the DO decide to go in to a all out price war and I don't think the Intel shareholders will like that... It all comes down to short term profits vs long term growth.

And yeah, AMD still holds a respectable market share on the Server side and is gaining on the Mobile CPU side.

I don't think AMD is going any where soon.

Well i cant speak for the locked sandy bridge, but i purchased the 2600k and it was easily overclocked to 4.5ghz with aftermarket cooler ran OCCT and Prime with nice results. As for the locked versions, the Intel spokesman even says , people who go with the locked version are mostly mainstream and should choose this option to use the incorporated graphics , in turn not having to purchase a video card. An enthusiast wouldnt even consider the locked version i would imagine, although i dont consider myself a hardcore enthusiast i am very pleased with the unlocked 2600k and the results i have had with it.

My old machine has a 965 BE in it, and as much as i loved AMD and their prices the new sandy bridge is much more responsive. I have my 965 at a 24/7 4.0ghz OC and it plays everything i throw at it still a very nice machine, although i don't consider myself a "fanboy" for either amd or intel , i am impressed with their new second gen chips. Bulldozer should be nice when it finally comes but i think it will be hard to compare with the first/second quarter releases of the sandy bridge chips.

Explains everything quite nicely , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGx [...] r_embedded

Basically if you are installing a "high end" graphics card you wont probably be going with a locked chip.