Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in Overclocking
Share

If only the i5-655k, i7-875k and i7-980x could be overclocked,

Total: 25 votes (5 blank votes)

  • I would have bought an i5-655k, i7-875k or i7-980x.
  • 5 %
  • I still would have bought one of the other intel processors.
  • 0 %
  • I would have bought something else instead.
  • 16 %
  • I didn't buy a Clarkdale, Lynnfield, Bloomfield or Gulftown CPU.
  • 10 %
  • I have a: G6950, i3 530-560, i5 750-760, i7 920-930 or i7-970.
  • 14 %
  • I have a: i5 650-680, i7 860-870 or i7 940-960.
  • 5 %
  • I have a: i5-655k, i7-875k or i7-980x.
  • 0 %
  • I have something else.
  • 19 %
  • I overclock my processor.
  • 28 %
  • I don't overclock my processor.
  • 7 %
September 20, 2010 7:46:17 AM

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/the-sandy-bridge-pre...

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?
September 20, 2010 7:38:20 PM

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. :??: 
a b K Overclocking
September 22, 2010 12:33:26 AM

Lol. If they really wanted to, they could. Speaking of which, Intel is rumored to be releasing a new Xeon that could Turbo to 3.8-3.9Ghz Q1/Q2 next year.

As far as the locked CPU goes, I guess that makes sense from a business perspective. I mean these CPUs are probably targeted at the Average Joe consumer. As long as Intel doesn't gouge prices on the unlocked CPUs, I'm some what OK with that. At any rate, the LGA 2011/Socket R are suppose to not be limited, so yeah. I'd probably upgrade to LGA2011 or Bulldozer next year anyways so OCing limitation wouldn't concern much as I plan to avoid LGA 1155 anyways. I'm sure my i7 920 OCed will still be a fine system for quite a while esp. if the refreshed 32nm LGA1366 i7s could OC well.
Related resources
a b K Overclocking
September 22, 2010 1:21:42 AM

Shadow703793 said:
esp. if the refreshed 32nm LGA1366 i7s could OC well.

Do you know something we don't here ?? :) 
a b K Overclocking
September 22, 2010 5:31:30 AM

Seems like a troll poll lol.

As long as Intel makes the superior cpu in my need range, I'll buy Intel. And probably for a little longer lol.
September 22, 2010 6:32:46 AM

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!
a b å Intel
a c 197 K Overclocking
September 22, 2010 1:41:25 PM

I agree with Shadow.

And because my two overclocked C2Q'sare still adequate satisfactory for my needs, it looks like I'll be skipping one generation of CPU's (the i3, i5, and i7).
a b K Overclocking
September 22, 2010 2:16:18 PM

wielander said:
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/the-sandy-bridge-pre...

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'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.
a b K Overclocking
September 22, 2010 2:31:08 PM

Quote:
First of all Intel has been purposely underclocking their cpu's for years. Why?


Heat production and market segmentation. The heat production issue is why top-bin CPUs can still be overclocked a good margin. In the old days before the 3 GHz P4s, the top-bin CPU was pretty much as fast as that line of CPUs could go and you were lucky if you could wring out a 10% overclock on the top-bin parts. The market segmentation reason is why some Intel CPUs have VT enabled and some don't, why some have Turbo Boost and others don't, and why some have HyperThreading and others don't, despite all of the features being supported in the silicon of every single chip. Market segmentation also leads to some chips having less than the full amount of cache enabled and a lower core count or clock speed, but some of that is also manufacturing variation. The disabling of the other features is purely marketing, though.

Quote:
So we think we are getting more than we pay for by overclocking them. If Intel released a 4ghz i7-920 2 years ago, would people be raving about how overclockable it is? No. It's a strategy that even AMD has followed. Underclock your cpu, and let consumer think he's getting a bargain by overclocking it. When really it was designed to run that speed anyways. Both AMD and Intel could have released 4ghz+ cpu's years ago. Not to mention it saves them a ton of money on heatsinkfans. If you want to run the cpu at 4ghz, you can buy your own $30-50 fan.


You get exactly what you pay for when you buy a CPU. You get a guarantee that the particular CPU will run reliably at a certain speed and not exceed a certain thermal level. Overclocking the CPU is a gamble that work out well or it may work out poorly. You may get a CPU that can be overclocked a large amount without a bump in Vcore and thus runs fast and relatively cool, you may get a CPU that overclocks far but requires a big Vcore bump and runs very hot, or you could have a CPU that barely overclocks at all. You never know what you'll get, so you can't count on it when you buy the CPU.

Quote:
So personally I think all cpu's should be locked. You get what you pay for and that's that.


I say let people who want to have a go at overclocking a CPU be able to do so, especially when they're willing to pay a premium for that unlocked multiplier but no guarantee of any overclock.
a b K Overclocking
September 22, 2010 3:58:28 PM

RJR said:
Do you know something we don't here ?? :) 

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.
a b K Overclocking
September 23, 2010 4:33:54 AM

Shadow703793 said:

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.

I hope your right, it would definitely be something to consider if they do it.
September 23, 2010 5:56:34 AM

Shadow703793 said:
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.

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.
a b K Overclocking
September 23, 2010 12:16:29 PM

wielander said:
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.


There already is a 32 nm refresh on LGA1366; they're simply sold as Xeons. Intel currently sells 17 32 nm LGA1366 Xeons, running the gamut from the 2.40 GHz quad-core E5620 costing $390 to the $1663 3.46 GHz quad-core X5677 and $1663 3.33 GHz six-core X5680. The 5600-series Xeons work in many X58 motherboards and a decent number of people have gotten the E5620 so they can play with a 32 nm chip but not pay the $900 for the Core i7 970. I predict Intel will flesh out the line a little more by replacing the E550x series with 32 nm models and probably will be replacing the Bloomfield Core i7s with 32 nm units as well, as they ramp 32 nm up and wind 45 nm down.
a b K Overclocking
September 23, 2010 12:24:27 PM

^ 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.
September 23, 2010 1:19:20 PM

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.
a b K Overclocking
September 23, 2010 2:32:06 PM

Shadow703793 said:
Here is a preview of what can be done with 32nm CPUs on LGA1366: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/xeon_x5667_6_cores
Do note that it's a 6 core

Quad: http://hwbot.org/community/submission/1034980_inteller_...

On air, so yeah.... seems promising. I'd say there is a good chance of getting about 4.8-5Ghz on water.


That result is funky as the Xeon X5667 is a quad-core unit, not a 6-core unit. Here are HWbot benchmarks for an actual X5667. I think the guy with the 6-core unit probably has an engineering sample or something that has all six cores left activated.

They also have quite a few entries for the Xeon E5620, which is the unit most people wanting a 32 nm LGA1366 CPU get.
a b K Overclocking
September 23, 2010 3:48:16 PM

wielander said:
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.


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.

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


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.

Quote:
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.


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.

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


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.

Quote:
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.


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.
a b K Overclocking
September 23, 2010 6:05:01 PM

MU_Engineer said:
That result is funky as the Xeon X5667 is a quad-core unit, not a 6-core unit. Here are HWbot benchmarks for an actual X5667. I think the guy with the 6-core unit probably has an engineering sample or something that has all six cores left activated.

They also have quite a few entries for the Xeon E5620, which is the unit most people wanting a 32 nm LGA1366 CPU get.

Yup. You are right. The X5567 is a Quad. Seems like HWbot is messed up....
Either way, 4.6Ghz with water isn't bad at all for a 6C/12T CPU imo. Hell, it's more power than most people need.
a b K Overclocking
September 24, 2010 2:16:11 AM

^ 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.
December 15, 2010 8:18:06 AM

locked sandy bridge CPUs is just another nail in Intel's value coffin. Damn, does that company feel in total control of the market or what?
January 23, 2011 9:50:16 PM

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.
January 24, 2011 3:50:25 PM

So if installing a high end graphics card to the Sandy Bridge setup, would the graphics run on the cpu still? If it runs on the card only, then there is no use of the internal graphics on the sandy bridge CPU. right? :/ 
!