Are you kidding me, an integrated POS sound device better than the XFi cards???? lol

Just my opinion,but i think this is intels way of punishing nvidia for not handing over the keys to sli.Pre-retail Penryn silicon ran just fine on the 680i reference platform.Intel made whatever changes it made to the yorkfields after widespread belief and assurances from nvidia that the Yorkfields would indeed perform and overclock on the 680i's.Intel then started promoting its skulltrail platform with the obvious expectation that nvidia would open sli up.When Nvidia declined this is the consequence.Of course this is all just pure speculation on my part......But i'm really interested in hearing anything that shows my speculation to be wrong......But what does it matter anyway we the end users are the ones who really get screwed here.Both Intel and Nvidia will both go on with their respective corporate lives and soon all of this will be just a bad memory.But it sure sucks to be caught in the middle of some corporate bullcrap....Anyways I'm waiting for the end of 2008 for intels "true" multicore architecture,i'm patient like that;)

Maybe thats why Nvidia is dabbling in Crossfire.

newtekie1Us SLI users don't really have that option. Though I already planned on getting a 780i board when they come out. The crappy quad-core overclocking of the 680i boards should be enough to keep people wanting the 45nm quad-cores away from them already.

I haven't really had major problems with my 680i boards. My first eVGA board died, and the replacement had a bad case intrusion sensor. They definitely don't kill RAM, I've had the same 2 sticks of RAM in my eVGA board and then my P5N32 for a year now with no problems, and I even run them at voltages slightly higher than they are specced for. My only real complaint is the down right crappy Quad-Core overclocking, which I am hoping will be fixed in the 780i boards.

vaperstylzJust my opinion,but i think this is intels way of punishing nvidia for not handing over the keys to sli.Pre-retail Penryn silicon ran just fine on the 680i reference platform.Intel made whatever changes it made to the yorkfields after widespread belief and assurances from nvidia that the Yorkfields would indeed perform and overclock on the 680i's.Intel then started promoting its skulltrail platform with the obvious expectation that nvidia would open sli up.When Nvidia declined this is the consequence.Of course this is all just pure speculation on my part......But i'm really interested in hearing anything that shows my speculation to be wrong......But what does it matter anyway we the end users are the ones who really get screwed here.Both Intel and Nvidia will both go on with their respective corporate lives and soon all of this will be just a bad memory.But it sure sucks to be caught in the middle of some corporate bullcrap....Anyways I'm waiting for the end of 2008 for intels "true" multicore architecture,i'm patient like that;)

NVIDIA can always nut-kick Intel by completely stopping the production of SLI chipsets for intel and prioritizing with AMD, the way they did with the nForce 2. The nForce 2 was the chipset that came to AMD's rescue during its darkest times with the K7.

Imagine users having to opt for a AMD Agena or Sandtiger just to be able to use SLI. Result: Crash in the sales of high-end Intel processors at the enthusiast segment, and also mainstream as AMD would make cheaper quad-core CPUs and x8 x8 SLI going to them.

Tatty_OneTBH, I will be surprised if the 965/975 will support Yorkfields @ 45nm effectively but thats my guess.....not fact so dont quote me. There are loads of occasions though where motherboards dont fully support newer tech that is released like 2 years after the motherboard so this does not surprise me really, I am sure we could all think of examples of that.

975 will. Even abit will be releasing a new BIOS supporting 45nm CPUs. (dual and quad as far as i know)

Ketxxx975 will. Even abit will be releasing a new BIOS supporting 45nm CPUs. (dual and quad as far as i know)

My point was....even if the board is listed as supporting BOTH dual and quad core 45nm chips, many 975's are not great qual overclockers now on Wolfdales let alone when Yorkfirld arrives, but as it stands at the moment.....As I understand it, the majority of 975's will not support Quadcore 45nm chips but as you said, that may change but in my opinion "support" and actually work with effectively (for overclockers, yes I know there arent that many of us) are 2 different things.

What we do know is that boards that simply have a BIOS update to enable them dont tend to work nearly as well as boards that are "native" to the technology.

Support should be good from what I've been told. Of course it still comes down to real-world. Which BIOS devs are severly out of touch with.

The ES Yorkfield chips worked fine on the i680/i650 boards, Intel changed something internally (on purpose no doubt) for the retail version, the fact that it can run on even the older revised 975 boards highlight the cheap cost cutting power supply designs on the nvidia boards.

SLI license declined = good bye nvidia

"SLI license declined = good bye nvidia" ----????

They refused an SLI license to Intel for use on their own Intel chipset based boards, Intel responded by making it more difficult for nvidia on the Intel platform, apparently modified the ES yorkfield core, not disclosing full details of the yorkfield core needed by nvidia for fuly stable operation on nvidia boards, you can't do much if Intel doesn't fully disclose these details.

Others speculated it was nvidia simply using the above excuse to drop further support for their existing i6x0 boards so they can sell more of their new chipset.

The engineering sample Yorkfields was fully operational running on beta bioses, something changed either by nvidia or Intel.

insiderThey refused an SLI license to Intel for use on their own Intel chipset based boards, Intel responded by making it more difficult for nvidia on the Intel platform, apparently modified the ES yorkfield core, not disclosing full details of the yorkfield core needed by nvidia for fuly stable operation on nvidia boards, you can't do much if Intel doesn't fully disclose these details.

Others speculated it was nvidia simply using the above excuse to drop further support for their existing i6x0 boards so they can sell more of their new chipset.

Can't NV have a brighter future if they made better chipsets for AMD. And did "something" to make NV cards perform with the AMD platform. An in this way capture the entire industry? So AMD regains the "elite gaming processor" status thru NV which it had back when you had the AMD SanDiego core + NFORCE 4 SLI.

Not really, Intel platform sells much more hardware then AMD platform, since AMD bought ATI (they make decent board chips) they can produce their own boards with AMD/ATI chipsets without nvidia.

Intel doesn't need nVidia (or anyone else for that matter), AMD/ATI would only need nVidia in the short run, in the long run they can both cut nvidia out of the motherboard market, that's the whole point with Intel's move, they not only want more CPU sales, they want more board chipset sales, they want it all! :D

insiderNot really, Intel platform sells much more hardware then AMD platform, since AMD bought ATI (they make decent board chips) they can produce their own boards with AMD/ATI chipsets without nvidia.

Intel doesn't nVidia, AMD/ATI would only need nVidia in the short run, in the long run they can both cut nvidia out of the motherboard market, that's the whole point with Intel's move, they not only want more CPU sells, they want more board chipset sales, they want it all! :D

so nvidia is out in teh "cold"

They were immediately after AMD bought ATI, Intel doesn't need to buy nvidia for their GPU on a CPU die chip to compete with AMD's fusion, they could expand their own graphics division.

insiderThey were immediately after AMD bought ATI, Intel doesn't need to buy nvidia for their GPU on a CPU die chip to compete with AMD's fusion, they could expand their own graphics division.

Intel graphics....you mean that pony express? Yeah right.

What I meant was....NV make the best GPUs. If NV also made their GPUs perform better with AMD and also their quad SLI and made a chipset that performed better than the AMD's own chipset, that would be the smartest retaliation.

...and ppl would be drawn to AMD just for better gfx performance.

You are forgetting the lower/mid end graphics market accounts for the most sales, nvidia may have the best performing cards but Intel still makes more money selling crappy integrated solutions than their 8800GT ;)

AMD's fusion and Intel's equivalent would cut the overall system cost by a bit.

insiderYou are forgetting the lower/mid end graphics market accounts for the most sales, nvidia may have the best performing cards but Intel still makes more money selling crappy integrated solutions than their 8800GT ;)

AMD's fusion and Intel's equivalent would cut the overall system cost by a bit.

yeah but try playing Crysis on fusion...you'll "Cry SiS"

Yes but again you are talking about a much smaller market at the high end than at the low end of the graphics market, the vast majority of the money is made in the low end, low cost sector where price is very sensitive.

The integrated CPU/GPU chips from Intel/AMD would completely wipe out nvidia current market share in the low end sector, and they do make a lot more money from the budget end than from their high end cards.

insiderYes but again you are talking about a much smaller market at the high end than at the low end of the graphics market, the vast majority of the money is made in the low end, low cost sector where price is very sensitive.

The integrated CPU/GPU chips from Intel/AMD would completely wipe out nvidia current market share in the low end sector, and they do make a lot more money from the budget end than from their high end cards.

For all those 2D-only people, there's VIA and SiS. Where I live (India), all state departments run AMD Athlon XP chips on a VIA KM400. :laugh: Now that's over 4 million PCs running VIA.

The sole reason why VIA hasn't yet come up with a mid/high end chipset for AMD is this.

The market price of a surplus Athlon XP 3200+ (Barton core) in India: $15.

btarunrFor all those 2D-only people, there's VIA and SiS. Where I live (India), all state departments run AMD Athlon XP chips on a VIA KM400. :laugh: Now that's over 4 million PCs running VIA.

The sole reason why VIA hasn't yet come up with a mid/high end chipset for AMD is this.

The market price of a surplus Athlon XP 3200+ (Barton core) in India: $15.

You could make some serious money there you know and I could help you! There is still a fairly big market in Europe for Bartons, especially the UK, I still see 3200+ Bartons going on E Bay here for £80....thats almost $170US!!!!!! :eek:

Its been pointed out before how Intel cant seem to get it in their skulls to make shit compatible. Every new chip seems to require a newchipset and mobo combo. Its damn ridiculous.

WarEagleAUIts been pointed out before how Intel cant seem to get it in their skulls to make shit compatible. Every new chip seems to require a newchipset and mobo combo. Its damn ridiculous.

they are compatible but what this thread is saying is that you won't get the full power of the processor like you would with a new chipset thats why so many processors werecompatible with LGA 275 and it rocked for those without enough cash to buy a new mobo same with AMD but even with their new procs you still needed to have a new mobo that fully used its potential

if it's a 775 chip.... it should F-ing work on all 775 boards. what the hell is wrong with intel?

btarunrCan't NV have a brighter future if they made better chipsets for AMD. And did "something" to make NV cards perform with the AMD platform. An in this way capture the entire industry? So AMD regains the "elite gaming processor" status thru NV which it had back when you had the AMD SanDiego core + NFORCE 4 SLI.

well i think thats why Nvidia is working on Crossfire, make the cards work with it so you can have them on both Intel and AMD chipsets. now if they would do that with their existing SLI boards, many would jump to them, since most Gamers of the past used Nvidia chipsets with ATI graphics.

eidairaman1well i think thats why Nvidia is working on Crossfire, make the cards work with it so you can have them on both Intel and AMD chipsets. now if they would do that with their existing SLI boards, many would jump to them, since most Gamers of the past used Nvidia chipsets with ATI graphics.

I didn't get you. You mean to say that Crossfire being able to work on a NVIDIA chipset?