FourstaffAnd the reason mainstream needs 6 cores is ... ?

Dj-ElectriCK CPUs dont get VT, why? becuase F@#k you thats why :D

Harry LloydWow, what a fail. Exactly the same clocks. What is the point of these CPUs? The tick-tock is now completely pointless. Same clocks, same number of cores, and a 10% architecture performance boost? What a waste of money for whoever upgrades from Sandy or Ivy, especially considering a new mobo is needed.

Unfortunately this is AMD's fault. Intel can do whatever they want without competition.

OctaveanNot so sure that is 100% accurate in all cases:

Intel Fixes VT-d Bug in Sandy Bridge-E CPUs

ark.intel.com/products/70845/Intel-Core-i7-3970X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-15M-Cache-3_50-GHz

So apparently there are “K” series processors with VT-d support,….

***edit***

Even the Sandy Bridge-E Core i7 3820 has VT-d support and while not an unlocked "K" series part it can still be OCed:

ark.intel.com/products/63698

JizzlerNote to self: Never consider K models and that one S model.

Back in my day, only had to remember one set of specs per CPU family and the only variable was the Mhz/Ghz of each model. Now there's exceptions all over the place and some of my most visited links are the CPU lists at Wikipedia and ark.intel.com.

JizzlerBack in my day, only had to remember one set of specs per CPU family and the only variable was the Mhz/Ghz of each model. Now there's exceptions all over the place and some of my most visited links are the CPU lists at Wikipedia and ark.intel.com.

newtekie1Of course it isn't 100% accurate in all cases. But it is probably accurate in 99% of cases. VT-d is a high level professional feature, and when used in that kind of professional environment people don't overclock. The instability risk isn't worth it. I'm sure there are a few enthusiasts that might like to play around with VT-d, but that isn't what the technology was developed for.

And yes, Sandy Bridge-E is a totally different beast. Every processor can be overclocked on that platform due to the way the platform is designed. That doesn't mean everyone overclocks that use it.

And don't confuse the Extreme edition processor with K series processors. The Extreme Edition processor offer more than just an unlocked multiplier. Professionals do use those processors and don't overclock them. There is no locked equivalent to the 3970X, it is just a flat out bad ass processor. However, there are locked equivalents to the K series processors. There is a 3770 that matches the 3770K, the K is unlocked and the non-K has VT-d.

hardcore_gamerIt would have of been nice if they kept the same TDP as ivy and increased the clock speeds instead.

OctaveanPerhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say with respect to your earlier post newtekie1.

I was only pointing out that the LGA2011 platform has processors that can OC and have VT-d (3970X, 3960X, 3930K and 3820). The “K” nomenclature is peppered in there as you know. As far as I know all the Sandy Brdige-E processors C2 stepping and above have functional VT-d support in hardware with OC support and that includes the Core i7 3930K.

There aren’t that many “K” processors to begin with. Considering only the most current processor line available (Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge-E) the percentage of K processors that support VT-d is 33.3% or 1/3 (out of the 3930K, 3770K and 3570K). If you consider OCable processors as a metric all the Sandy Bridge-E processors can OC so the percentage there (with Ivy Bridge) with respect to VT-d support would be 60% with VT-d support.

The value of OC + VT-d is up to the individual. I agree that most people who want one of these features doesn’t necessarily care about the other.

newtekie1Read my post, the K processors do have VT.

And exactly how far back is "your day"? I mean even going back to 80386 different models had different sets of specs.

JizzlerOh, I know. Whether it's VT/VT-d or just VT-d doesn't change whether I'd ever buy them. I simply found DJ's post the most accurate description of Intel's reasoning. "Fvck you, that's why!" works as an answer to "Why?" 97% percent of the time. The other 3% I actually see a clear reason as to why Intel chose to do what they did.

Covert_Deathyea blame AMD cause that's the fun thing to do :rolleyes:

if your going to blame someone blame the software and game companies out there that still live in the 90's and refuse to code for 4+ Cores still... yes it's a littler harder to do but damn get with the times it's what NEEDS to be done

newtekie1But what I'm saying is that the 2011 platform is a totally different beast. Every processor is overclockable. And the processors that do have unlocked multipliers don't have equivalents that are locked. For example, there is no standard 3930, there is only the 3930K. So if someone wants that level of performance, even if they plan to run it at stock, the 3930K is the only option, so including VT-d is a must on that processor. However, on the mainstream platform that isn't the case. There is a 3770 and a 3570, so including VT-d on the K processors isn't necessary. If someone wants VT-d they are going buy the 3770 not the 3770K.

Harry LloydWow, what a fail. Exactly the same clocks. What is the point of these CPUs? The tick-tock is now completely pointless. Same clocks, same number of cores, and a 10% architecture performance boost? What a waste of money for whoever upgrades from Sandy or Ivy, especially considering a new mobo is needed.

Unfortunately this is AMD's fault. Intel can do whatever they want without competition.