Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Concerned about new cpu from Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 26, 2010 3:57:18 AM

Hello all,
I'm looking to get a new PC. I'm still in the 780i/q6600 world. I'm concerned as I'm wondering if the new cpu's will be different sockets. I'm loving the New Asus R3E but was wondering if what Intel is bringing out is compatible with this board?
I don't understand why are they changing the socket after such a short time? Money..yea, sure, but I don't think that's the main reason..

Actually I'm kinda confused though, is it the gulftown, or the sandy bridge that's coming out..Sorry, not really up to date..

More about : concerned cpu intel

a b à CPUs
August 26, 2010 4:47:04 AM

Gulftown is the codename for the Intel Core i7 32 nm six core CPUs, and have already been released (i7 980X for example). Sandy Bridge is being released later this year, and during next year.

The Core i7 980X is compatible with the Asus R3E but I doubt they'll release any new arch. CPUs for LGA 1366.
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2010 7:26:10 AM

Sandy Bridge is a new architecture and will be on a new socket design AFAIK.
Related resources
a c 81 à CPUs
August 26, 2010 7:41:36 AM

You've a pretty good setup.. So It'll be no problems, i guess, for you to wait till the next Intel architecture (Sandy Bridge) rolls out and benchmarks are released.. May be then the current line of CPU's will go down in price making a upgrade path more logical and clear to you..
August 26, 2010 9:32:16 AM

Herr_Koos said:
AFAIK.


sorry for the stupid question (look who's asking ;)  but what AFAIK means?
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2010 10:35:46 AM

As Far As I Know, only to be used by insanely lazy people.. :) 

Similar to IIRC.
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2010 2:35:26 PM

And it looks like AMD's Bulldozer will also be on a new socket. From TechPowerUp's article on the Hot Chips BD Details :

Quote:
At the chip-level, there's a large L3 cache, a northbridge that integrates the PCI-Express root complex, and an integrated memory controller. Since the northbridge is completely on the chip, the processor does not need to deal with the rest of the system with a HyperTransport link. It connects to the chipset (which is now relegated to a southbridge, much like Intel's Ibex Peak), using A-Link Express, which like DMI, is essentially a PCI-Express link. It is important to note that all modules and extra-modular components are present on the same piece of silicon die. Because of this design change, Bulldozer processors will come in totally new packages that are not backwards compatible with older AMD sockets such as AM3 or AM2(+).
August 27, 2010 10:49:43 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
And it looks like AMD's Bulldozer will also be on a new socket. From TechPowerUp's article on the Hot Chips BD Details :

Quote:
At the chip-level, there's a large L3 cache, a northbridge that integrates the PCI-Express root complex, and an integrated memory controller. Since the northbridge is completely on the chip, the processor does not need to deal with the rest of the system with a HyperTransport link. It connects to the chipset (which is now relegated to a southbridge, much like Intel's Ibex Peak), using A-Link Express, which like DMI, is essentially a PCI-Express link. It is important to note that all modules and extra-modular components are present on the same piece of silicon die. Because of this design change, Bulldozer processors will come in totally new packages that are not backwards compatible with older AMD sockets such as AM3 or AM2(+).


While i take this with a grain of salt since it hasn't been confirmed yet, it makes sense. BD has way too many new changes to use AM3 (didnt they say the NB is integrated now). Still if it is a beast i guess its worth buying a new mobo for. I wont have to change anything else so its not too bad.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 2:03:00 PM

yannifb said:
While i take this with a grain of salt since it hasn't been confirmed yet, it makes sense. BD has way too many new changes to use AM3 (didnt they say the NB is integrated now). Still if it is a beast i guess its worth buying a new mobo for. I wont have to change anything else so its not too bad.

+1

Unlike AMD, every recent Intel generation has huge boost and change over the previous and so AMD fanboys should stop complaining that Intel keeps changing socket.

For example, 1156/1366 has integrated memory controller and on-die PCI-E controller(1156 only) which 775 doesn't and hence the socket change is required.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 2:53:23 PM

iqvl said:
+1

Unlike AMD, every recent Intel generation has huge boost and change over the previous and so AMD fanboys should stop complaining that Intel keeps changing socket.

For example, 1156/1366 has integrated memory controller and on-die PCI-E controller(1156 only) which 775 doesn't and hence the socket change is required.

Say that about LGA1155. You get a marginal ~20% performance boost, with no major architecture changes that require a socket change. In fact, they just took out a contact, changed to physical socket and called it a day.

The LGA2011 is only barely passable, Quad-channel is just mostly gimmickry for desktops.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 3:33:12 PM

Timop said:
Say that about LGA1155. You get a marginal ~20% performance boost, with no major architecture changes that require a socket change. In fact, they just took out a contact, changed to physical socket and called it a day.

The LGA2011 is only barely passable, Quad-channel is just mostly gimmickry for desktops.

20% is amazing given the fact that there's no extra core added! Had you ever seen any recent AMD generation gives 20% over the previous?

No major change?! BEST ON-DIE GFX INTEGRAED! In addition, do you think similar architecture would give 20% performance boost?

a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 3:44:36 PM

iqvl said:
20% is amazing given the fact that there's no extra core added! Had you ever seen any recent AMD generation gives 20% over the previous?

No major change?! BEST ON-DIE GFX INTEGRAED! In addition, do you think similar architecture would give 20% performance boost?

Yes, its like Nehalem and Core, the principle architecture has not changed much.

On the AMD side, K10 is a healthy 15% better than K8 clock for clock (link), did AMD need a socket change for that? No.

Claiming "best IGP" now is a irresponsible and fanboish statement without knowing its competition. It is very possible AMD shoves a HD5570-class GPU on Llano, which would put the SB-IGP into shame.

My point is, there's no point in LGA1155 other than the sake of "new series, new socket, more money from chipsets", Intel could have made SB 100% compatible with 1156 but they just didn't feel like it.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 4:16:02 PM

Timop said:
Yes, its like Nehalem and Core, the principle architecture has not changed much.

I just realized that the one arguing with me is a totally noob....

Integrated memory controller and on-die pci-e controller gives super faster "communication" between RAM and GFX which is a huge change!

RAM and GFX on LGA775 MB have to connect to CPU via MB instead of connecting to CPU directly. There is just no way for it to support Nehalem!

There is no point debating with someone who talks with no knowledge at all. I will end here.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 4:31:48 PM

iqvl said:
I just realized that the one arguing with me is a totally noob....

Integrated memory controller and on-die pci-e controller gives super faster "communication" between RAM and GFX which is a huge change!

RAM and GFX on LGA775 MB have to connect to CPU via MB instead of connecting to CPU directly. There is just no way for it to support Nehalem!

There is no point debating with someone who talks with no knowledge at all. I will end here.

Spiffy, apparently the person who speaks information has no idea what CPU architecture mean.

Is the Memory controller part of the architecture of the CPU core? No.

All I said basic architecture for the CPU core in Nehalem and core is Very close and it is possible to raise performance by 20% with similar architecture. Never said 1156 was unnecessary, just rebuffing you point that an 20% isnt possible with similar architectures.

Why am I talking with a person who has no sense of spelling and grammar anyways? :pt1cable: 
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 7:09:27 PM

I doubt many here on THG will be getting a Sandy Bridge with the on-die GPU - it ain't gonna hold up for the next generation of games where you'd want a couple of 460's or 5870's :p . However that ~20% IPC improvement over Nehalem would be quite a selling point, seeing as how on Anandtech's preview the non-working-turbo i5-2400 quad pretty much kept up with the turbo-working 6-core Westmere on some benchmarks anyway.

So, gimme an 8-core unlocked multiplier SB, and hold the GPU, Intel! :D .
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:04:14 PM

Timop said:
Spiffy, apparently the person who speaks information has no idea what CPU architecture mean.

Is the Memory controller part of the architecture of the CPU core? No.

All I said basic architecture for the CPU core in Nehalem and core is Very close and it is possible to raise performance by 20% with similar architecture. Never said 1156 was unnecessary, just rebuffing you point that an 20% isnt possible with similar architectures.

Why am I talking with a person who has no sense of spelling and grammar anyways? :pt1cable: 

RAM and PCIE on LGA775 are controlled by mb and can not communicate directly with CPU directly, noob!

There is no way for RAM and PCIE on LGA775 to work with Nehalem, because they can NOT communicate with CPU, noob!

Why does Intel make the change? For super fast connection, noob!

20% performance boost is possible with similar architecture?! noob!

Keep showing off your ignorance! It suits AMD fanboys well.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:07:37 PM

iqvl said:
RAM and PCIE on LGA775 are controlled by mb and can not communicate directly with CPU directly, noob!

There is no way for RAM and PCIE on LGA775 to work with Nehalem, because they can NOT communicate with CPU, noob!

Why does Intel make the change? For super fast connection, noob!

20% performance boost is possible with similar architecture?! noob!

Keep showing off your ignorance! It suits AMD fanboys well.

Like it was Intel who pioneered on-die memory controllers for desktop CPUs. ;) 
I guess calling me "noob" 4 times is just one way of blatantly avoiding how pointless it was for Intel switching from 1156 to 1155.

Its pretty sad talking to some ignorant Intel fan-boy who can not even spell right, and has no idea what "similar" architecture mean......
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:08:47 PM

Quote:
Huge boost alright........a boost that costs you three times as much.

Gosh! Why are there so many morons who don't realize that they can get the performance of $1000 CPU by OCing the $200 ones?

How many times should we remind you about the OCing?

AMD fanboys just keep hitting the "wall" of fantasy again and again!
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:18:26 PM

Timop said:
Like it was Intel who pioneered on-die memory controllers for desktop CPUs. ;) 
I guess calling me "noob" 4 times is just one way of blatantly avoiding how pointless it was for Intel switching from 1156 to 1155.

Its pretty sad talking to some ignorant Intel fan-boy who can not even spell right, and has no idea what "similar" architecture mean......


Quote:
]Like it was Intel who pioneered on-die memory controllers for desktop CPUs.

Did I state that? Where? Day dreaming again?

I only stated the fact that older LGA775 MB just can NOT support Nehalem!

Admit that integrated memory/pcie controller is a huge change and require new platform, noob ***!

p.s. It doesn't matter who apply integrated memory controller first. Performance is all that it matters.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:25:06 PM

Did I state that you could use Core and Nehalem on the same platform then? You must been hallucinating.

Go read the "knowledge" so you speak, the difference between the CPU cores between Core and Nehalem isn't as big as you think. Nehalem without the integrated PCIe/Memory controller would still be a potent CPU.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:27:15 PM

Timop said:
Did I state that you could use Core and Nehalem on the same platform then? You must been hallucinating.

Go read the "knowledge" so you speak, the difference between the CPU cores between Core and Nehalem isn't as big as you think. Nehalem without the integrated PCIe/Memory controller would still be a potent CPU.

Then why would AMD make integrated memory controller? Because they are not as ignorant as someone who would say "integrated memory controller" doesn't matter!

Oh and according to your "PRO" statement, AMD shouldn't need any platform change since Athlon 64 as it already has integrated memory controller, noob!
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:31:15 PM

iqvl said:
Then why would AMD make integrated memory controller? You don't even need AM2+ if they didn't.

I don't understand your logic.

My point is you can make the CPU perform better simply by tweaking the core architecture, keep the socket and not mess with the IMC. The IMC on-die is definitely a welcome addition nevertheless. (Thus I never said anything about the 775->1156 swap in the first place, it is a nice step forward.)

Just answer my question before anymore usage of the word "ignorant", what is the importance of LGA1155 besides the sake of a "new platform", did Intel add anything new this time that requires a socket swap?
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:39:04 PM

Timop said:
I don't understand your logic.

My point is you can make the CPU perform better simply by tweaking the core architecture, keep the socket and not the IMC. The IMC on-die is definitely a welcome addition nevertheless.

Just answer my question, what is the importance of LGA1155 besides the sake of a "new platform", did Intel add anything new this time that requires a socket swap?

You just don't get it! Let me tell you!

Intel can of course make Nehalme with LGA775 pin, but you will still have to buy a new MB because the old LGA775 ones does NOT support integrated memory/pcie controller.

Not matter Nehalem is in LGA775 or LGA1156/1366, you need a NEW MB with NEW design!


Quote:
Just answer my question, what is the importance of LGA1155 besides the sake of a "new platform", did Intel add anything new this time that requires a socket swap?

Stop the crap and read the article below before you speak.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-pre...
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:43:43 PM

iqvl said:
You just don't get it! Let me tell you!

Intel can of course make Nehalme with LGA775 pin, but you will still have to buy a new MB because the old LGA775 ones does NOT support integrated memory/pcie controller.

Not matter Nehalem is in LGA775 or LGA1156/1366, you need a NEW MB with NEW design!

I'm not talking about Nehalem/Core. Obviously That is true and I agree with that.

I'm talking about Sandy bridge, in what technical stand point does sandy bridge require a new socket compared to Nehalem/1156? It is entirely possible for SB to be backwards compatible with 1156(P55/H55) then releasing a new chipsets(H67/P67) so you can get all the features like they did with the P4/C2D.

Thank you VERY much.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:46:54 PM

Timop said:
I'm not talking about Nehalem/Core. Obviously That is true and I agree with that.

I'm talking about Sandy bridge, in what technical stand point does sandy bridge require a new socket compared to Nehalem/1156? It is entirely possible for SB to be backwards compatible with 1156(P55/H55) then releasing a new chipsets(B65/P65) so you can get all the features.

Thank you VERY much.

Read the article and get some knowledge before you speak.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-pre...
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:48:46 PM

iqvl said:
Gosh! Why are there so many morons who don't realize that they can get the performance of $1000 CPU by OCing the $200 ones?

How many times should we remind you about the OCing?

AMD fanboys just keep hitting the "wall" of fantasy again and again!


*cough* Except when Intel limits oc'ing on non-k edition CPUs they will likely overcharge for *cough* And sandy bridge isnt even getting 20% performance increase at 300 MHz, clock for clock its closer to 10%, which really isnt as amazing as you make it out to be. By the time turbo boost is done with and put in retail, we might see 15-20% on single thread apps, but not much on apps that can actually use 4 cores or more. Stop calling people noobs, not only does it make you sound like a PMS'ing annoying 10 year old, you are also correcting people who are actually right. Core 2 to Nehalem really didnt change the arch much, as shown by nehalem not getting massive performance boosts clock for clock and core for core:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=46

Its obviously better, but it isnt a massive arch change. Counting 775, since the release of i7, Intel has had 4 sockets when SB comes out in less than the past 2 years. AMD has had 2. Backwards compatible no less. Furthermore, you say Intel has "massive performance increases every socket", well let this sink in, between the Athlon X2 6000 and the Athlon 2 255, very similar clock speed, the later sees a 37% increase in performance from CS4, a 43% performance increase in DivX, 20-30% here, 40% there, 10fps in the games, and im just going down the list:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/28?vs=121

Between the Q9650 and i7 940, once again 2 very simliarly clocked cpus, on different sockets, the i7 sees 22.8% performance increase in CS4, 15% less than the difference above, a 26% increase in DivX, 17% less than between the 6000 and 255. So where exactly are you coming from saying that INTEL sees massive performance increases every socket, and not AMD.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:52:07 PM

iqvl said:
Read the article and get some knowledge before you speak.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-pre...

Hmm....From the article thie differences are:
Die shrink, Slightly lower L3 latency, and a re-worked grouping of GPU cores into EUs and a higher PCIe bandwidth for SATA3.

Which one requires a new socket to function?
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:55:15 PM

ares1214 said:
*cough* Except when Intel limits oc'ing on non-k edition CPUs they will likely overcharge for *cough* And sandy bridge isnt even getting 20% performance increase at 300 MHz, clock for clock its closer to 10%, which really isnt as amazing as you make it out to be. By the time turbo boost is done with and put in retail, we might see 15-20% on single thread apps, but not much on apps that can actually use 4 cores or more. Stop calling people noobs, not only does it make you sound like a PMS'ing annoying 10 year old, you are also correcting people who are actually right. Core 2 to Nehalem really didnt change the arch much, as shown by nehalem not getting massive performance boosts clock for clock and core for core:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=46

Its obviously better, but it isnt a massive arch change. Counting 775, since the release of i7, Intel has had 4 sockets when SB comes out in less than the past 2 years. AMD has had 2. Backwards compatible no less. Furthermore, you say Intel has "massive performance increases every socket", well let this sink in, between the Athlon X2 6000 and the Athlon 2 255, very similar clock speed, the later sees a 37% increase in performance from CS4, a 43% performance increase in DivX, 20-30% here, 40% there, 10fps in the games, and im just going down the list:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/28?vs=121

Between the Q9650 and i7 940, once again 2 very simliarly clocked cpus, on different sockets, the i7 sees 22.8% performance increase in CS4, 15% less than the difference above, a 26% increase in DivX, 17% less than between the 6000 and 255. So where exactly are you coming from saying that INTEL sees massive performance increases every socket, and not AMD.

ares1214: Teachers, don't criticize kids who are ignorant and refuse to accept the right thing. Otherwise, you are a 10-year-old preak.
CRY MORE!

Quote:
Between the Q9650 and i7 940, once again 2 very simliarly clocked cpus, on different sockets, the i7 sees 22.8% performance increase in CS4, 15% less than the difference above, a 26% increase in DivX, 17% less than between the 6000 and 255. So where exactly are you coming from saying that INTEL sees massive performance increases every socket, and not AMD.

You can OC the 920 to 4.2GHz!

AMD fanboys just won't listen whatever you say!
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 9:57:52 PM

Im not a teacher, so i can call you ignorant all i want! :lol:  and guess what! You can do the same with the Q9650! :ouch:  YEAH! That doesnt change anything, your just grasping at straws now.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:05:47 PM

Threadlock in 3...2...1...
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:07:40 PM

Timop said:
Hmm....From the article thie differences are:
Die shrink, Slightly lower L3 latency, and a re-worked grouping of GPU cores into EUs and a higher PCIe bandwidth for SATA3.

Which one requires a new socket to function?

Lower L3 latency, higher PCIe bandwidth and SATA3 will be bottlenecked by Nehalem's MB. Thus, Sandy-Bridge wouldn't give performance boost over Nehalem if they are used on P55/X58!

BTW, why does Bull-Dozer use new socket as well? There is "NO" new architecture. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:11:24 PM

We dont know for sure BD is on a new socket yet. And lower L3 latency, not much, higher PCIe bandwidth, already high enough for GPU's of today and on 1366, and SATA 3 bottlenecked?! :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:17:36 PM

ares1214 said:
Im not a teacher, so i can call you ignorant all i want! :lol:  and guess what! You can do the same with the Q9650! :ouch:  YEAH! That doesnt change anything, your just grasping at straws now.

Hey, little kid. Do you know that the difference between the two at 4.2GHz will be much greater than that of at 3GHz?

Why?
*****************************************************
20% efficiency difference means
1. 3GHz i7 ~ 3.6GHz 9650 -> 600MHz difference
2. 4.2GHz i7 ~ 5.4GHz 9650 ->1200MHz difference
*****************************************************
(p.s. Don't forget to revise it at home! :lol:  )

In addition, 9650 can't do 4.2GHz!
(p.s. Recite it!)
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:18:31 PM

iqvl said:
Lower L3 latency, higher PCIe bandwidth and SATA3 will be bottlenecked by Nehalem's MB. Thus, Sandy-Bridge wouldn't give performance boost over Nehalem if they are used on P55/X58!

BTW, why does Bull-Dozer use new socket as well? There is "NO" new architecture. :lol: 

But for the people who has a 1156 Mobo, it cuts the option of reusing it. 10-15%>0%, besides not everyone needs SATA3, and the PCIe bandwidth like AT stated is for SATA3.
See the point now...?

If Bulldozer does the exact same thing, Ill complain too. But if there is a valid reason for switching socketa (eg LGA2011 like previously stated, why not.)
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:19:38 PM

ares1214 said:
We dont know for sure BD is on a new socket yet. And lower L3 latency, not much, higher PCIe bandwidth, already high enough for GPU's of today and on 1366, and SATA 3 bottlenecked?! :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

You obviously talk based on your feeling without reading anything from the article.

Quote:
The other major (and welcome) change is the move to PCIe 2.0 lanes running at 5GT/s. Currently, Intel chipsets support PCIe 2.0 but they only run at 2.5GT/s, which limits them to a maximum of 250MB/s per direction per lane. This is a problem with high bandwidth USB 3.0 and 6Gbps SATA interfaces connected over PCIe x1 slots
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:21:37 PM

Timop said:
But for the people who has a 1156 Mobo, it cuts the option of reusing it. 10-15%>0%, besides not everyone needs SATA3, and the PCIe bandwidth like AT stated is for SATA3.
See the point now...?

If Bulldozer does the exact same thing, Ill complain too. But if there is a valid reason for switching socketa (eg LGA2011 like previously stated, why not.)

Not everyone needs quad core CPU as well. Why are quad core CPUS there?

Timop: "WE DON'T NEED NEW TECHNOLOGY!"
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:22:50 PM

Great job twisting up info here.

iqvl: "IM A RICH BASTARD SO NEWER=BETTER!"
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:26:03 PM

iqvl said:
Hey, little kid. Do you know that the difference between the two at 4.2GHz will be much greater than that of at 3GHz?

Why?
*****************************************************
20% efficiency difference means
1. 3GHz i7 ~ 3.6GHz 9650 -> 600MHz difference
2. 4.2GHz i7 ~ 5.4GHz 9650 ->1200MHz difference
*****************************************************
(p.s. Don't forget to revise it at home! :lol:  )

In addition, 9650 can't do 4.2GHz!
(p.s. Recite it!)


WOW...that isnt how it works. Or atleast not so literally. Lets say both go to 4 GHz. Thats a 1 GHz increase for both, or 33% clock speed increase. That means the 9650 increase by about 33% in single threaded apps as does the i7. A GHz is a GHz, i7 GHz arent faster than everything else! :lol: 
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:28:34 PM

And so we have it bottlenecking SATA6 at 250MB/s. Funny when HDD's cant even touch half of that. And that was intels fault for making it like that, im saying that, but doesnt mean we should have to pay the consequences with a new socket.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:30:16 PM

I will definitely do that when I get a new generation CPU. However, it won't be in the near future as I am extremely happy with my quad core Nehalem which beats X6 at the same frequency any day!

I actually save more money than AMD owners who have to upgrade to "high-end" AMD CPU every year in order to keep up with mid-range Intel. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:32:22 PM

ares1214 said:
And so we have it bottlenecking SATA6 at 250MB/s. Funny when HDD's cant even touch half of that. And that was intels fault for making it like that, im saying that, but doesnt mean we should have to pay the consequences with a new socket.

Heard of SSD?

Oh, sorry I forgot "AMD fanboys don't need new technology!".

AMD fanboys: We only need Athlon 64! F**K the Phenom, Thuban and Bulldozer.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:32:59 PM

Where on earth does the X6 come in to this? And ya know, its a REALLY good thing nobody cares if you are happy with your CPU. And its too bad Intels mid range IS MORE EXPENSIVE than AMD's high end...now thats funny :lol: 
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:34:55 PM

uh-huh, So Intel CPUs have dynamic performance change with age now....
Spiffy.

(Point: The "High-end" AMDs you say costs the same as your "Mid-range" Intel...Opps.)
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:36:04 PM

ares1214 said:
WOW...that isnt how it works. Or atleast not so literally. Lets say both go to 4 GHz. Thats a 1 GHz increase for both, or 33% clock speed increase. That means the 9650 increase by about 33% in single threaded apps as does the i7. A GHz is a GHz, i7 GHz arent faster than everything else! :lol: 

Don't you AMD fanboys brags out the "multi"-threading of X6 everyday recently?

Now you are talking about single thread? :lol: 

Besides, i5/i7 are faster clock per clock in single thread apps. You are wrong again. :pfff: 
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:36:24 PM

iqvl said:
Heard of SSD?

Oh, sorry I forgot "AMD fanboys don't need new technology!".

AMD fanboys: We only need Athlon 64! F**K the Phenom, Thuban and Bulldozer.

You: We only need the shiny new Haswells! F**K the Core, Pentium and Bridges.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:37:33 PM

Timop said:
uh-huh, So Intel CPUs have dynamic performance change with age now....
Spiffy.

(Point: The "High-end" AMDs you say costs the same as your "Mid-range" Intel...Opps.)

Yeah, costs the same but perform much worse especially when OCed.

Great buy for "smart" AMD fanboys.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:38:50 PM

iqvl said:
Don't you AMD fanboys brags out the "multi"-threading of X6 everyday recently?

Now you are talking about single thread? :lol: 

Besides, i5/i7 are faster clock per clock in single thread apps. You are wrong again. :pfff: 

Let me not try to talk sense in your censored ears (or eyes). Nice day!
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:40:46 PM

Seriously, who here has been as flamingly biased here as you?! And once again, nobody mentioned the X6, im talking about Intel vs Intel, stop avoiding the points that you are wrong in.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:42:50 PM

ares1214 said:
Seriously, who here has been as flamingly biased here as you?! And once again, nobody mentioned the X6, im talking about Intel vs Intel, stop avoiding the points that you are wrong in.

Nobody mentioned clock per clock and Q9650 before you do. Why did you come up with that?

We were talking about the platform change.

You are one of the most successful troll here! Well done!
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 10:44:57 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!