[Cant.Touch.This]

Originally Posted by Killador

We all knew this would happen. Intel has never been a fan of overclockers because we can show how unjustified their prices are for extreme chips compared to a normal. AMD is soon to follow im sure...

I wholly agree with the former statement - guess they didn't like how people took their lower clocked CPU and OC'd to higher for free. As for the latter, could you offer a reason to why AMD may follow so soon? Just curious on your thoughts Killador.

On another note, what would the sockets be then?

S1156-> S1155(?)
S1366-> S2011(?)

What becomes of S1567? Not really applicable to me, but I'd like to have a rounded-view on this. Haven't come across the next MP-supported socket in my readings or browsing through the above posts. No one touched on the four channel DDR3 support for their high-end offering; yes, the benefits will surely be contested - a measurable but not really perceivable change in performance (what were the average % increase from dual to triple channel DDR3 again?). Actually, re-reading my last sentence I guess there isn't much to talk about it, it'll just be a repeat.

If the DMI clock doesn't OC past 2-3% of its base 100MHz, we're down to multiplier OC (assuming board manufacturers don't figure a workaround)? I guess their 'K' series processors fill that space, but for those on air cooling it doesn't outperform their locked counterparts (of course I'm referring to current CPU's, I couldn't know how SB locked vs unlocked would perform).

Fueling some discussion since it's been a week.

[CarpeDiem]

I still remember the days when they said the same thing about Nahelem not being overclockable. I'll believe it when I see it.

[wingman99]

Originally Posted by CarpeDiem

I still remember the days when they said the same thing about Nahelem not being overclockable. I'll believe it when I see it.

Nahelem was just speculation, This is a roomer with allot of legs to stand on.

QUOTE:According to one Taiwanese motherboard company, on a Sandy Bridge system, the fact that all the busses are linked means that turning up the Base Clock by just 5MHz caused the USB to fail and SATA bus to corrupt.
We chatted about possible work-arounds but at the moment the few 'asynchronous' setups tried were currently not working. It's been claimed to use out-of-the-box the design was deliberately limited with the intention to simplify board design and lower costs. This obviously has the 'unfortunate' side effect that enthusiasts will be unable to manually overclock Sandy Bridge CPUs to their limits, but the CPU's own internal overclocking, TurboBoost, will still work and Intel will offer some controlled multiplier overhead for enthusiasts as a token gesture.

If bit-tech did talk to the Taiwanese and it's true, it does not make any sense, decrease the complexity of the motherboard for cost and increase the complexity of the CPU and PCH

[wingman99]

Originally Posted by Cant.Touch.This

I wholly agree with the former statement - guess they didn't like how people took their lower clocked CPU and OC'd to higher for free. As for the latter, could you offer a reason to why AMD may follow so soon? Just curious on your thoughts Killador.

On another note, what would the sockets be then?

S1156-> S1155(?)
S1366-> S2011(?)

What becomes of S1567? Not really applicable to me, but I'd like to have a rounded-view on this. Haven't come across the next MP-supported socket in my readings or browsing through the above posts. No one touched on the four channel DDR3 support for their high-end offering; yes, the benefits will surely be contested - a measurable but not really perceivable change in performance (what were the average % increase from dual to triple channel DDR3 again?). Actually, re-reading my last sentence I guess there isn't much to talk about it, it'll just be a repeat.

If the DMI clock doesn't OC past 2-3% of its base 100MHz, we're down to multiplier OC (assuming board manufacturers don't figure a workaround)? I guess their 'K' series processors fill that space, but for those on air cooling it doesn't outperform their locked counterparts (of course I'm referring to current CPU's, I couldn't know how SB locked vs unlocked would perform).

Fueling some discussion since it's been a week.

I find it odd and compelling that the year 2011 is the same as the pin count does intel just play with us when deciding the pin count.

With just adding unlocked multipliers it is not as good as being able to raise BCLK, you receive much more performance.

Also with no motherboard involvement in overclocking, a chimp will be able to overclock.

Here is more evidence that intel is going to make it cheaper to build motherboards with sandy bridge.

LINK:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HkPwqPQpPs

[DumpALump]

So the rumors are becoming real? What a shame. I figure this would affect a lot of people designing products for overclocking. Sure a lot of people will switch to AMD, but there is still a majority who will buy Intel and will just end up having to leave everything stock.

I'm sure AMD will welcome the new enthusiasts. I don't really see AMD limiting overclocking. Considering that their chips are so cheap, why wouldn't you just buy one of their high end chips anyways? I hope Bulldozer turns out to be a real beast so there would be no need to buy an Intel.

[JenBell]

I see it as very simple. Intel...however unlikely, do limit the OC...then OCer's will move to AMD. AMD CPUs might not be awesome OCers...but they never stop u. I dont think Intel will stop the OCing community. The reason is simple...the nerds have influence. I give u an example, one of my clients wanted to upgrade there fleet of laptops and desktops (200/400 respectively) for Windows 7. As tech consultant I was asked a simple question by the tech dept geeks: Desktops. Intel or AMD? I reponded instantly Core i5's. Laptops...I recommended neither. I instead asked about the users, applications, etc and then recommended that they enter a rolling contract for initial 2 years with a respected Mac reseller. From September they will issuing MBP 13 as standard issue with Parallels 5 installed with win7 (VL holders). What does this all mean...simple...they followed my advice...one person...decided 600 laptops/desktops. Influence is not something u can buy. I mean...how many people here who own a 980x CPU can say, yep...AMD is the way to go...that's what I want? U cant...and u wont. U read, u see, u buy...u play...u smile and then u know...u bought something awesome.
(I owned Abit Max3 mobo...had AMD PC's when there DCores ruled the world...since Intel unleashed core...its all been Intel). Before anyone asks the question...during the AMD reign...I still recommended Intel mobile CPUs...even for desktops...they OCed so well it was almost comical^__^

[Cant.Touch.This]

There's more news on SB now:

http://www.computerbase.de/news/hard..._sandy_bridge/

http://www.techeye.net/chips/sandy-b...roadmap-leaked

[EarthDog]

Yep.. on the Front page... http://www.overclockers.com/intel-sa...oadmap-leaked/

[Cant.Touch.This]

Oh, thanks I was looking for the actual pictures. All I got were thumbs from others.

[wingman99]

It's all over, here comes the intel overclocking money train.

Anandtech

The Sandy Bridge Preview

LINK: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/t...ins-in-a-row/5

QUOTE:With Sandy Bridge, Intel integrated the clock generator, usually present on the motherboard, onto the 6-series chipset die. While BCLK is adjustable on current Core iX processors, with Sandy Bridge it’s mostly locked at 100MHz. There will be some wiggle room as far as I can tell, but it’s not going to be much. Overclocking, as we know it, is dead.

Regardless of how they’re priced, what this is sure to hurt is the ability to buy a low end part like the Core i3 530 and overclock the crap out of it. What Intel decides to do with the available multiplier headroom on parts further down the stack is unknown at this point.

[Randyman...]

There will be ways around this - I'm sure of it. Look how much Intel has embraced Overclocking on the i7 - they even wrote some software tweak applications for it! I have no intentions of going to Sandy Bridge in the next year, but I'm sure something will happen on the Overclocking front by then. Granted Intel will still sell more expensive unlocked "K" processors, but I seriously doubt all overclocking will be dead with the exception of the K series CPU's.

NTM the revenue they "lose" from us overclockers buying $200 CPU's and cranking them up past a $1000 CPU's stock clocks is minimal and likely only a small blip on their bottom line. I know I'd NEVER buy a $1000 CPU - maybe a $300 CPU. So I wouldn't be an example of any type of lost revenue to them - only a better price-to-performance experience for me as the end user and an Intel Fanboy

[k9rosie]

I think it's a simple marketing idea. They want to limit/disable overclocking in their processors because they want you to fork out more money with a processor than a higher Ghz.

[Killador]

Originally Posted by Cant.Touch.This

I wholly agree with the former statement - guess they didn't like how people took their lower clocked CPU and OC'd to higher for free. As for the latter, could you offer a reason to why AMD may follow so soon? Just curious on your thoughts Killador.

On another note, what would the sockets be then?

S1156-> S1155(?)
S1366-> S2011(?)

What becomes of S1567? Not really applicable to me, but I'd like to have a rounded-view on this. Haven't come across the next MP-supported socket in my readings or browsing through the above posts. No one touched on the four channel DDR3 support for their high-end offering; yes, the benefits will surely be contested - a measurable but not really perceivable change in performance (what were the average % increase from dual to triple channel DDR3 again?). Actually, re-reading my last sentence I guess there isn't much to talk about it, it'll just be a repeat.

If the DMI clock doesn't OC past 2-3% of its base 100MHz, we're down to multiplier OC (assuming board manufacturers don't figure a workaround)? I guess their 'K' series processors fill that space, but for those on air cooling it doesn't outperform their locked counterparts (of course I'm referring to current CPU's, I couldn't know how SB locked vs unlocked would perform).

Fueling some discussion since it's been a week.

There are runmors going around about AMD's Fusion CPUs to counter the Sandy Bridges CPU coming out Q1 2011. They have the Bulldozer (Zambezi Family), Llano (Athlon II Family) and Ontario (Bobcat Family) CPUs that are rumored to be released Q1 and Q2 2011. Most of these i believe are to be mainstream on desktop and laptops - they really look identical to Nehalems - but with some features Sadny Bridges has to offer.

[Randyman...]

RE: k9rosie
That's kind of my point - I'd NEVER spend $600-$1000 on a CPU. I guess I see it as a similar argument that content providers lose revenue due to piracy. Well, most people that pirate wouldn't have bought the content in the first place making the actual "losses" much less. So Intel saying "All you people that buy $200 CPU's and OC them will now have to buy our $600 CPU instead" - it's just not going to happen and we'll be content with our $200 CPU's at stock speeds .

The Overclockers are a blip in their bottom line, so it's not like this is going to boost Intel's bottom line anyways (we are such a small percentage of their sales, and then an even smaller subset of people that would actually fork out 2x-3x more cash for the faster CPU's)...

[wingman99]

Originally Posted by Randyman...

The Overclockers are a blip in their bottom line, so it's not like this is going to boost Intel's bottom line anyways (we are such a small percentage of their sales, and then an even smaller subset of people that would actually fork out 2x-3x more cash for the faster CPU's)

That is not true most of all retial motherboards are overclokable, we are the meat and potatos of DIY around the world for desk top usage industy that also incudes performance video cards, and all performance producs, it all ties in.

intel is not stopping overclocking there putting a price on it. I've never spent over $200 for a cpu and not much over a $100 for a overcloking motherboard and have always destroyed the performance of the intel $1000 CPU with overclocking.

If intel only market $300+ CPU K models and if motherboard manufactures have a special chip's made to bypass intel, the cost of it being the only factor, this will hurt the market in the long run I feel.

To this date intel has only sold 15-25,000 thousand Gulftowns world wide IIRC there is not a big market for $1000 cpu,s.

From the beginning PC gaming boomed with because of DIY video and CPU,
and the meat and potatoes of DIY are low budget.

So we will have to see because video card companies started to charge more from the beginning, also SLI, fire and that worked because you can't cheat on video cards like you can do with CPU's

Just think they way it stands now there is only 2 K models of CPU that can be overclocked, the way it was before all models could be overcloked. like $50-$100 CPUs running almost as good as top model CPUs, some even better.

Think of all the people that did not intend to overclock, however did later because they already had all the equipment and just gave it a try, boom.

[Bobnova]

They are embracing it, look at the K series!
This is Intel realizing that overclockers are a large enough market to make it worthwhile to market to them. They can't market to OCers if all cpus can be OC'd.
Sooooo, they lock 'em down except for a few more expensive ones.

[Randyman...]

OEM dwarfs DIY by magnitudes - The DIY/Performance Enthusiast market that actually knows what Overclocking is is very small when comapred to the OEM's massive buying power.

I know if I ask 100 of my coworkers (a fairly tech savvy bunch, too!) only 1% would know what I'm even talking about - much less actually implement overclocking in their own rigs. If you ask here, you'll get a VERY different sample since we are on OC Forums after all (we are the exception - not the rule).

Needless to say my sentiments above stand. I would not buy a $500-$1000 CPU just because they are the only ones that "allow" overclocking - just as the "pirates" generally wouldn't buy the content they pirate if they had no way to pirate in the first place. It's a very similar concept (something for nothing) from a "bottom line" standpoint...

Why would I upgrade from a 4GHz i7 930 to a "Stock" sandy bridge of similar price ($199)? I wouldn't - and Intel knows that. The fact that their more expensive CPU's don't sell well adds more creedence to my theory IMO. The MoBo manufacturers will mod their BIOS's to find a way around this IMO - I'm not terribly worried

Worst case scenario? Everyone goes back to AMD - then Intel will eat crow rather quickly. I seriously don't believe Intel is willing to give AMD that chance after the P4 era left egg on their face...

[Bobnova]

If that 1% of computer buyers pay $100 more for an unlocked CPU, Intel makes a few more million.

This whole thing is aimed at mid range, socket 1155. Your 930 will likely still beat everything for this socket.
In the mid range it's just like the 650 vs 655K.

[Randyman...]

It's less than 0.1% - well less than that. My 1% was an arbitrary sample from "techies" and only suggested they know what overclocking was - not that they actually implemented any type of overclocking themselves. Out of the 300 people that work here (a "techie" environment on top of that), I'd bet maybe me and one other person actively overclock their PC's...

If an i7 930 is $199 and beats the more expensive "K" series Sandy Bridge CPU's - then what's the motivation to buy the K series??? I don't see it.

Again - I really believe Intel will NOT let AMD take the reigns on this - and AMD already has $99 Quad Cores, and a slew of fantastic overclockers below $200.

I might consider a $300 CPU (my last two i7's were only $199), but beyond that I wouldn't have a huge problem going to AMD - and Intel knows this. I'm not terribly worried either way as I won't be building a new system anytime soon.

[wingman99]

Originally Posted by Randyman...

OEM dwarfs DIY by magnitudes - The DIY/Performance Enthusiast market that actually knows what Overclocking is is very small when comapred to the OEM's massive buying power.

I know if I ask 100 of my coworkers (a fairly tech savvy bunch, too!) only 1% would know what I'm even talking about - much less actually implement overclocking in their own rigs. If you ask here, you'll get a VERY different sample since we are on OC Forums after all (we are the exception - not the rule).

I'm not taking about OEM I'm talking about Asus gigabyte and all the others motherboard and companies that make DIY products including video cards. for DIY when you tie it all together we are the ones that make up the big gaming industry it's not OEM desk top PC's for gaming.

look at it this way if you think we are only 1%, who do you know that games on a PC desk top, you can't go by who you know.

Do you get the big picture yet. DIY is what pushes the gaming industry not OEM desk top sales.

I will put it this way the majority of people in the world don't need new pc desktop upgrades unless there gaming.

And if you did go to local gaming clubs like I have done in the past gamers are well aware of the DIY products out there.

Also I work as a tech and hardly ever upgrade gaming PC's or have to deal with gaming PC owners.