[ap673]

http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherb...619/index.html

They don't look too bad, with pricing compared with Athlon64's, but their performance doesnt look a lot better. Although it has a ton of new features like DDR2 and PCI-E, it still lacks 64-bit proccessing. Oya and the ability to overclock...

"And then there is a major annoyance for ambitious users: Intel obviously spent time on figuring out how to prevent users from overclocking their systems. That's right: no overclocking. We uncovered the anti-overclocking mechanism that is part of all 900 series MCH chips."

[DanIdentity]

Why is everyone posting the fact that Intel has come up with a way to limit overclocking to 10%, but failing to mention that companies like Asus and Gigabyte have found ways to (partially) circumvent it?

[ap673]

They do succeed in mentioning that after companies like Asus and Gigabyte found ways to partially circumvent it, you can still only max overclock 15-20%, if you're lucky.

[hkh]

That sucks now I dont no what I am going to do I may go to an AMD system

[Phrenetical]

That is the most depressing article i have ever read, seriously, and AMD are looking ever more pretty.

Man intel obviously knows people OC their chips, and to be quite honest if a few intel managers, read these forums they would quickly discover a significant segment of users buy their chips because you can over clock them. If intel do this and really do limit their chips in the final production line, i quarantee im switching to AMD, NO WAY will the stock intels keep up with what AMD is doing, and everyone knows the fx-53 is kicking the crap outa stock prescotts right now.

And why add onboard graphics, why. Motherboard manufacturers got rid of their on board graphics a long time ago, for the simple reason, they couldnt compete (complete understatment), with graphics accelerator manufacturers, so why onm earth do intel think they can, its pretty well established, if you want games, buy a vid card.

The only things i saw from that article that tickled my fancy was PCIe, and the extra mem bandwidth, but having my cpu, run at those temps, with that lack of OC'ability, with virtually no performance gains from the cpu all from mem, and PCIe . WHY WOULD WE BUY THEM

Man seriously, im so confused right now, and all i can think is AMD, AMD, FX-53, and i totally guarantee i wont be the only one. can someone cheer me up.

you would think intel after realising they have come close to the clock speed limit for technology at present, they would offer stuff that gains performance, smarter architecture, LESS POWER CONSUMPTION, CPU's that work inline with GPU's not CPU's that steal system resources, a good 64bit chip, or dual core. I know eventually they will, but again WHAT do these chips offer!!!

[runsalone]

If motherboard makers include a way to circumvent intel's overclock barrier, the next intel chipsets will include even better protection.

Also, it's the principle of the thing. You don't tell me what I can and cannot do with hardware I have purchased with my own cash.

[ap673]

Ya, and since its still 32-bit, you're s*** out of luck when Intel's new 64-bit cpu comes rolling along pretty soon. But if prices of the s775 compare with Athlon64's, then I can't wait til we see what the prices of the new 64-bit cpus , or if they will even be compatible with Socket T motherboars.

[darthdana]

If i was a betting man, I would say, MICROCODE update would fix these issues. Intel is a mass market company with shareholders. Onboard intel video will make Mr Corporate happy, and it will sell like ten million of them. Since the FX is the AMD pawn of choice for unlimited OC options, I would see Intel soon releasing theirs, with better power distro it seems 775 offers some options for some good overclocking. I think Intel is going to make it harder on the people who buy low/middle cpu's and ramp to high end. They are going to let highend ramp as higher. AMD has done this already, you dont see much overclocking on AMD64 over 10 percent, AMD just choose to BIN their parts more carefully versus a chipset killswitch. Never the less, I guess I will be keeping the good old 875 p4ee for a while longer. Oh well, PCIEXPRESS aint gettting me anything yet anyway.

[uvaman]

Intel has the biggest video market share.. look it up
Integrated video its not for us, but for like 100million other people... I guess OC protection its for those shady system integrators that sell you a 3.2c thats really a 2.4c......

[Phrenetical]

Yeah i concede the on board video thing will make them money, but ffs.

What i want to know, is what happens when you try to include a GPU, high end one lets say. Does the CPU stop wasting time and mem resources computing graphics stuff, does it keep doing it when there is no need, hence lower performance. If you GPU isnt so crash hot, can the CPU run in line with it to make your system better, or do you get one or the other, the GPU or the CPU graphics.

It just annoys me cause its so disturbingly useless as it is, and will the price justify it, the power consumption?, the heat?, and all the other crap, onboard graphics aint worth the cost in this situation/implementation, if they did it properly, i wouldnt have a prob with it.

I wish they would stop stuffing around and switch to 64, how much money has AMD made from 64bit, and every computer expert knows its the way things will head, i think intel just wants to squeeze the 32bit market that extra bit, get all they can, then release something better. Legal but it sucks

[Jiggahurtz]

Thats a shame about intel locking down overclocking, but I remember somewhere about intel threatening to do that a long time ago. It only took amd shooting themselves in the foot for Intel to follow suit it seems. Intel knows where it can make a good buck and Amd has opened that door for em. But if you look at it like this 10% of 3400mhz is 340mhz. So its not that great of an overclock but when you get the board makers allowing 20% thats a 680mhz gain. So your still hitting 4ghz with a 3.4 processor. Which ain't too shabby.

[batboy]

Not sure why people are harping on the 64 bit crap. There ain't no 64 bit OS or other software available yet. The Intel roadmap shows 64 bit processors being released this fall... in plenty of time for the slow change over to 64 bit apps.

[L337 M33P]

Originally Posted by batboy

Not sure why people are harping on the 64 bit crap. There ain't no 64 bit OS or other software available yet. The Intel roadmap shows 64 bit processors being released this fall... in plenty of time for the slow change over to 64 bit apps.

uh

Many distributions of Linux can be compiled for AMD64. Heck the distributions have precompiled AMD64 binaries in their public FTP release folders.

As for 64-bit software? Anything under the GNU license can be compiled for AMD64, for example Openoffice. The linux version of UT2004 comes with a 64-bit executeable as well as the normal one, but this is a bit of a moot point as it doesn't offer much advantage performance-wise.

[DanIdentity]

Does anyone else find it odd that there was zero mention of this 10% OC limit before the launch of LGA775 and 915/925? I read just about every preview article concerning the new socket and accompaning chipsets and they nailed every spec perfectly, except this.

Why is Tom's the only site mentioning this OC limit?

[dropadrop]

Originally Posted by batboy

Not sure why people are harping on the 64 bit crap. There ain't no 64 bit OS or other software available yet. The Intel roadmap shows 64 bit processors being released this fall... in plenty of time for the slow change over to 64 bit apps.

Not everyone buys several cpu's a year. If you are planning on buying another one at the end of the year then it should'nt matter, but if you want to keep it for next year too then you will get a very cheap upgrade just by buying the 64bit windows when it comes out.

Atleast you can with an A64...

And what 64bit processors are being released by intel this fall? Nocona? Not exactly what most people here will be buying.

Originally Posted by darthdana

They are going to let highend ramp as higher. AMD has done this already, you dont see much overclocking on AMD64 over 10 percent, AMD just choose to BIN their parts more carefully versus a chipset killswitch.

Every manufacturer will put the worst processors as lowest end for the first revision. The low end A64's have allready long been good overclockers.

[dippy_skoodlez]

Originally Posted by batboy

Not sure why people are harping on the 64 bit crap. There ain't no 64 bit OS or other software available yet. The Intel roadmap shows 64 bit processors being released this fall... in plenty of time for the slow change over to 64 bit apps.

Say that to my 64bit redhat, or my windows 64bit sitting in my CD case, and I dont even own an A64.


The integrated video is nothing to worry about... Its mainly for dell, ETC. It needed a speed boost and finally got it. Its been the same PoS since the I810, and finally got some steroids. Not the fastest, but atleast it plays..... something, other than windows. Dell will have a hayday with it.

[CPL.Luke]

did anyone catch the 75c processor temp....

[PiSan314159]

Originally Posted by Phrenetical

Man intel obviously knows people OC their chips, and to be quite honest if a few intel managers, read these forums they would quickly discover a significant segment of users buy their chips because you can over clock them.

I have no idea why Intel would want limit overclocks, but I do know that it doesn't matter to them if they do. "Revenue of $30.1 billion was up 13% over 2002, with net income of $5.6 billion, up 81% over 2002." - taken directly off intel.com

This forum has over 45,000 members. Even if ALL of them bought $1000 intel CPUs, we wouldn't be touching their revenue. However, many users here use amd, and very few intel fans are on $1000 cpus.

My grossly exaggerated example isn't a prick in intels side. Their money lies with people who buy dell. People who choose intel over amd because they're not sure if amd can run windows (my uncle).

We don't matter to them.

[Phrenetical]

Firstly there is a lot more oc'ers out there than us, in a lot of different countries.

And as far as im concerned if my chips were able to reach speeds like 4.8gig off a 3.0 chip, by someone using vapochills or water cooling, i would be stoked, and try to design the chips to be robust enough to go further.

It a prestiege thing, but intel obviously doesnt care, and are willing to drop a good product eg Northy core, for the crap they are releasing now.

The only thing i was able to decide that is bad about overclocking for intel is, people not buying the latest CPU, for example, a lot of guys on here have bought 2.4c's because they know they can hit 3.0gig relatively easy. So i imagine intel gets angry bout losing 100$ as they bought a lower end chip and not the higher end one. but then again, maybe most of the 2.4 buyers wouldnt have bought anything cause they couldnt afford a 3.0, or switched to amd. Also, if intel doesnt care about us Oc'ers, why on earth are they gonna limit their OC'ability, it annoys me that peopel that actually understand computers get stomped on, and idiots who would buy a dell, and a cpu with graphics processing ability get pandered to on hands and knees.

Intel suck now. They better pick up their act.

[OC Detective]

Even if there was a 100,000 of us and we bought say 2 cpus each in a year that would be 200,000 - which is still less than 1% of all cpus sold worldwide in a year (worldwide sales are in excess of 30 million units for both companies).
The way AMD and Intel are looking at the market right now is that if we want the prestige we have to pay for it (e.g. the FX and EE). Face it we are a minority but with the way Intel going and possibly AMD following we need to be a vocal minority.