- Joined
- Aug 5, 2002
Joeteck said:
Its 1280x720... Thats the native 720p res. 1366 is just bigger for the sake of more people buying it just because it has bigger numbers.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
New Socket Late 2008
- Thread starter hUMANbEATbOX
- Start date
Its 1280x720... Thats the native 720p res. 1366 is just bigger for the sake of more people buying it just because it has bigger numbers.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Location
- Folding in Maryland!!
Gah! Hearing about new things coming makes it that much harder to upgrade now. 
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
its is a new socket, socket BAlabamaCajun said:
http://www.dvhardware.net/article15760.html
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,5105.html
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4322
while older its older then the one the OP posted. they are also going to have Hyperthreading but there are no indications of the cpu getting IMC and CSI.
*edit*
after bit more looking i found this
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35122
so Nehalem is getting CSI but no IMC with the new socket. i do remember reading some time ago that intel was going to do both at the same time with the new socket.
here is a interesting thread i came across with some linkage in it.
http://www.xoxideforums.com/cpus/79191-nehalem-quad-core-imc.html
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Location
- A Labyrinth
Here's another.
http://www.dvhardware.net/article17972.html
Is it me, or is the internet just become nothing but a bunch of soundbytes!
ES, those last two links did turn up some interesting info. As for FSB, why does Intel want to reinvent the wheel, implement HT it's a standard that is not owned by AMD.
http://www.dvhardware.net/article17972.html
Is it me, or is the internet just become nothing but a bunch of soundbytes!
ES, those last two links did turn up some interesting info. As for FSB, why does Intel want to reinvent the wheel, implement HT it's a standard that is not owned by AMD.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2005
- Location
- Massachusetts
1280x720 = 720pJoeteck said:
1366x768 = Resolution of most 1080i TVs
Hope that clears some stuff up.
-Mobious-
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Location
- in a magical field
Since the new Xeon Penryn speeds and range of processors were just leaked showing the fastest at 3.16GHz I'm thinking that a G0 Conroe will last well enough until Nehalem, which should be at least a year after Penryn so probably late 2008 or early 2009. Penryns show about a 10% per clock improvement over Conroe aside from SSE4 where they rock hard, so unless Penryns clock like mad and Intel is really just holding them back it could mean a new setup now might last a loong while.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Location
- Concord, NC
Mobious said:
1280x720=720p
1366x768=768p
1920x1080=1080i or 1080p
Remember that TVs can generally accept many different resolutions, but have to scale them to their native resolution before displaying them.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Location
- A Labyrinth
LOL, Is this a numerology conspiracy with a 1366 pins equating to monitor resolutions.Mobious said:
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2005
- Location
- Massachusetts
There is no such thing as 768p, for starters. Secondly, the reason why they made 1080i TVs 1366x768 was so you could still receive 720 broadcasting, but at the same time have your 1080i input source. The 1366x768 resolution allows you to downgrade the interlaced (30fps) 1920x1080 image in just such a way as to not make the image look distorted or like it has lost a lot of quality.jason4207 said:
-Mobious-
PS: On the other subject, I deff agree with pin-modder fans: more pins = smaller work-enviornment = HELL!!!
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Location
- Concord, NC
Mobius- I don't want to start an argument but, do a search on 768p if you want proof.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2007
- Location
- Germany for now.
we need to contact Intel and make them 1337 ]=[7 |_||*!!!
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Location
- Jax, Florida
Wow 1366 I can't wait this is going to be sweet.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Location
- Concord, NC
Mobious said:
There are a lot of resolution standards; 480p, 576p, 720p, 768p, 1080p. Not all of them are mainstream and the only source you'll find for some of them is your PC. I don't agree w/ your argument about 1366x768 being made for 1080i. 1080i & 1080p look best on a native 1920x1080 resolution monitor. 720p looks best on a 720p monitor. My projector is 720p native and 1080i images look great on it. I don't think a 1366x768 monitor will make it look much if any better. 1080i/p is a fairly even multiple of 720p (2.25), so scaling should be a lot simpler than from 720p to 768p (0.878477306...), or from 1080i /p to 768p (1.97657394...).
I believe that 1366x768 monitors have a different reason for existence since there isn't any 768p source material out there. A very standard 4:3 PC resolution is 1024x768. If a 1366x768 monitor receives a 1024x768 signal it can display it w/ 1:1 pixel mapping w/ black bars on the sides. It is important to have 1:1 pixel mapping with PC signals as it makes text a lot easier to read.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
Mobious said:
jason4207 said:
jason4207 said:
Can yall do the rest of us a favor and take this some where else. This constant thread crapping is not helping this thread as per the topic.
They have a really cool feature here called the deleted button.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Location
- Concord, NC
Sorry. I'm an avsforum guy, and woke up thinking about this.
Feel free to delete my off topic posts.
Feel free to delete my off topic posts.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2005
Hmmm...
P4 - 512KB cache
Presshot - 1 MB cache
C2D - 2/4 MB cache
Penryn - 12 MB cache
New Socket - ??? mb cache!
P4 - 512KB cache
Presshot - 1 MB cache
C2D - 2/4 MB cache
Penryn - 12 MB cache
New Socket - ??? mb cache!
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2002
Nehalm (i know thats spelt wrong) was going to have if not mistaken 12Megs per 2 CPU's... I know there was a little write up of how much was rumored to go in on the CPU itself but now that Im thinking of it more. So 24Megs in total for a Quad.
