You sure about that? Put 2 GPU's on it or stress the memory out and see how well that FSB does. If you want I am sure I can find you a stack of benchmarks showing how well that ones goes.
Don't need them thanks I ran a few myself back in the day. My last two LGA775 systems (the QX9650 w/ HD 5850BE CFX and
Q9400 @ 417FSB/no bump in Vcore (1.2375V) /3.33G +EP45-DS4P+ GTX 280SLI/HD 5850 CFX and later briefly, 580 SLI w/SLI hack) were perfectly stable every day they ran
Except with Z77 and X79 you cannot go buy a brand new CPU every year you will by buying a brand new motherboard as well
And this is a problem for the enthusiast builder in what way?
What are you trying to get at with this one?
I thought it was obvious. I was asking questions.
You own a P6 design chip which dates back to Pentium 3. It was designed in the middle of single core needs. We are well past that.
So Intel CPU design is dead? Well, if it is you can rejoice. Don't save me a pew in your church just yet.
That is already considered a pretty bad review
And why is that? Because it doesn't bolster your argument. How about
this one:
but figures you would find it. I am quite glad to see a $130 more expensive processor perform better when not only overclocked more
Better than what??? Maybe you can show me where I said anything about a comparison regarding performance, show me where I disparaged PD's performance. You seem to be making some straw man argument and trying to put forward an idea that AMD are the future and Intel's CPU's don't cut it.
All I've mentioned is a personal choice based on the local resell market (a scarcity/lateness to local market for AMD waterblocks doesn't help the enthusiast here either), and a general opinion of marketability from an OEM standpoint. You're the one with a Go-AMD or go home mentality.
What I find most interesting is the 3770K they clocked up hit higher than most at 4.8ghz and the 8350 fell short...
WTF are you talking about? the PCI-E 2.0 vs 3.0 article only featured Intel systems.
SSD caching is available on ONE chipset. Not exactly making headway.
Well no, actually it's both the chipsets you talked about earlier ( Z77 and
likely X79)...
Except with Z77 and X79 you cannot go buy a brand new CPU every year you will by buying a brand new motherboard as well
...as well as
Z68 and
Z75 and
H77 and
Q77
AMD also has
options for onboard WiFi.
Must be very prevalent if the only example you could find was a discontinued board. You might also note that my quote was related to what the majority of prospective computer buyers might look for (as opposed to "enthusiasts"). So, if you believe that as a marketing bulletpoint, multithreading is a better drawcard than WiFi, WiDi etc. etc. for the masses...
I'd think that more people might look at options such as choice in the mATX/ITX form factor, onboard WiFi and WiDi, SSD caching and the like.
...then we indeed see marketing for the masses from a different perspective
Electrical restriction meaning what?
What it usually means...data I/O
TPU's own review shows negligible difference between 2.0 and 3.0 PCI-e X16
I thought that had been made relatively clear when I mentioned
dual-GPU and
multi-GPU
The number of available lanes is a substantial hamper on crossfire and SLi performance. Hence why people do not want a 16x/4x mobo instead looking for an 8x/8x.
SLI isn't available for any motherboard with a x16/x4 lane assignment, and four lanes mechanical/electrical does tend to bottleneck
some enthusiast level cards relying on
some CPU intensive games. We've (I've) already established that the difference between PCI-E 2.0 x16 @ 16 and PCI-E 3.0 x16 @ 8 is nominal for bandwidth, and favours the 3.0 spec for latency (encoding overhead)
Also if you would like to continue to insulting not only myself...
No offense intended, but if I see opinion paraded as fact I tend to note it as such.
The post you quoted is you naming things that you don't think AMD will have I fail to see how that proves anything in your favor.
The reply was in response to SuperXP. Their assertion being that the PD benches circulating weren't PD but a Bulldozer revision. My assertion was/is that PD is basically a Bulldozer revision (as opposed to a full respin), and as such wasn't incorporating RCM- which, with it's lowering of power envelope was one of the distinguishing characteristics touted between Bulldozer and (the original) Piledriver- a plan that now seems to be a tweak to accelerate PD's entry into the marketplace and possibly leaves room for a second revision
should Steamroller be delayed ( by
GloFo's 28nm bulk process ramp speed or otherwise).
