Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by ViperXTR, Sep 12, 2011.
...so basically this just exists for the higher chipset licensing fee and the profits on those E chips? Cause the performance is so damn close to 1155 they'd do just fine if they didn't release it. I mean even with that epic memory bandwidth increase it didn't do jack squat on clock for clock performance. Might as well cancel DDR4. I don't think I'll be due for another core upgrade for 4 years looking at the available roadmaps. I'll pick up a 28 nm gpu and then I'll be out of the game for awhile. Gonna need a new hobby to blow cash on.
Thank you very much.
Pretty much thought this... LGA 1366 hit first, then LGA 1156.. and gaming wise both perform the same(i7 860K).. this time its reverse and still the same thing
I've been running X58 set up since April 2009. It looks like I'll either move to a 22nm ready 1155 set up or wait for Ivybridge. More than likely I'll wait and by then my funds will be handsome.
Are people forgetting that there aren't really any games\programs that support more than 4 cores\threads? I wouldn't expect to see a huge performance gain from something like this in gaming especially. They also stated at various points that the drivers\BIOS was very problematic. I'm sure the final product will be slightly better. As long as this thing doesn't cost $1200 it will still sell nicely to enthusiast's.
What?! Some games already see a small benefit from 6 cores. And some programs scale up to 48 threads or more. Any program for photo/video editing benefits from more cores.
It's funny how when first dual cores came, people said you only need a single core for games, when quad cores came they said you only need dual core, when hex cores came they said you only need a quad....
I just hope Intel sticks to S2011 for a longer time since it looks a really nice platform for future.
IMO they will add 8 core versions to the desktop aswell.
Those are very niche situations, and I can't think of many games (if any really) that see a noticable benefit between 4 and 6 Cores. I know BF3 is supposed to do up to 8 Threads, but that's still a month out, and it will really be a first.
It's fairly accurate for early adopters. By the time there are enough programs that support 6/8/10/12+ threads, Processors such as this will already be old technology.
I'm not sure but BFBC2 did see a small gain from a hex core in certain situations but nothing big.
But I still don't understand why people whine about gaming with a 6 core CPU...if you only game get that quad and be done with it, you have a choice to get one.
I was talking about games not programs, programs are already quite well threaded.
Old is not the same as slow, CPU's like Core 2 Quad are still great for gaming.
All of you that don't like many cores, you can use this, you won't have to worry about how well thread the game is:
Might be because it was true.
Isnt that like saying minimum requirements listed for any game should be good enough for all?
You guys can have a single core or dual if you want but from experience not a benchmark Ill take my quad over them any day of the week.
1155 is looking better by the minute, intel will sell a lot of boards and chips on that platform.
lord knows they will still sell X79's for hardcore fans too, just not a whole lot of em.
It is not. The point is when dualcores first came out games was not optimized for them. Name a game from 2005 that was. Not even Battlefield 2, which had kinda steep requirements, was that. It was the same with quads and now it's true for hexas. There is, as you say, some impact in one game, but that impact is as you say "nothin big".
Now you want a quad for hardcore gaming, but four years ago (lga775 quads) games didn't use it as much as today.
Football Manager's (2011, Intel is a sponsor too) optimized for 8 threads you know. It's loading up all of my threads right now. lol
Yes, but when the Conroe dual cores first came out, they performed head and shoulders above all the pre-existing single core competition and within 18 months, were a statutory requirement for high end gaming. Likewise, when the quad-cores first came out, a fast clocked dual core CPU would whip its ass in gaming everytime but 2-3 years down the line the quad core became statutory to those adverse to losing frames in thier high end gaming.
Bearing all this in mind, anyone looking to upgrade thier base PC today with a view to the next few years ahead (I had my E8400 almost 4 years and it is still more or less adequate for full on eye candy gaming) would want to move up from Quad core to Hex/Octo core. Had I splashed out on a Q9900 (more than double what I paid for my E8400) I would have had all those years of having a superior PC to what I have had and would not have had to accept compromised frame rates in my gaming (post BFBC2) for the past 18 months or so. Indeed, I may not even have the need to upgrade for another 12-18 months.
In short, I don't buy the argument that dictates that someone should never buy the latest tech just cos the present software doesn't make good use of it.
In relation to the SB-E, looks very underwhelming which dissapoints me somewhat as i have been holding out on an upgrade for almost a year now and looks as though the 2600K (which I could have had ages ago) might just have to do the job afterall........unless Bulldozer is something much more special than it seems like it is going to be.
Looks like 2600k will continue to be the sweet spot for power users on a budget.
I'm quite disappointed in the x79 chipset. It really looked to have all the enthusiast features (PCIe 3.0, SaS, ridiculous number of Sata ports, possibly USB 3.0), and now it doesn't look much better than x58, really. It isn't like Intel to rush to get something out the door like this (processor seems fine, referring to the chipset); I wonder if they're worried by the release of something else? They've had no problem delaying Ivy Bridge until March to make sure it was up to snuff...
I don't want to see a repeat of earlier this year with the storage controllers on their p67 chipset (a chipset that they did take their time with).
Edit: they're apparently willing to delay the server chipset for SaS and PCIe 3.0, so why not desktop?
I think that had more to do with Conroe being awesome at everything than games being multithreaded. Also they were released a bit after the other dual cores, so yeah..
Didn't know that. Thanks.
I think people are getting a bit ahead of themselves lol. I will wait until I see the release, and subsequent proper reviews with release drivers, BIOS', and so forth.
Same with BD. I'm excited to test both myself
I think you're spreading unnecessary FUD. Pointless speculation and rumor spreading isn't helping. You will feel bad if the X79 boards mature and end up totally rocking. Oh, and the server market is totally different. You can't really compare it to some desktop boards. You have the power to not purchase something. That's why I wait until something has been proven and matured a bit before buying.
Has anyone else noticed the CPU-Z screenshot, where it states the voltage at 1.456v at idle. Is that a false reading from CPU-Z, or will they really run at those volts.(This could be interesting to know, for our 2600K chips maybe being able to handle such volts too)
very interesting. right now I could do a straigh swap of my mobo, cpu, memory to an 1155 2500k rig.
a 2600k would just be a few bucks more.
seeing how well it does that's none too shabby.
by the time performance improves and prices drop on lga2011 I'll have more funds (providing they let the socket ride at least half as long as 1366 did)
Whatever do you mean? All I pointed out is that Intel has had no problem in the recent past delaying releases to make sure they ironed out their issues (they didn't realize SB storage controller issues until after release). Yet this time, they are simply opting to cut features in order to get it out the door ASAP. Whether they're feeling threatened by a competitor's imminent release, or just want to re-release the x79 chipset later with the missing features to get more money from enthusiasts remains to be seen.
And why would I feel bad if the x79 boards mature and rock? That seems like an odd statement to make...
There will be this release, the full featured release sometime probably early in 2012, then the DDR4 update for the board AND cpus at the end of 2012 or start of 2013. All this updating so close together is going to make people feel pretty burnout on this platform. When it shows some sign of stability like 1366 had for such a long run then people might jump on, but right now the market for this is pretty damn small. 1155 gives you the same performance for less, and the people not going to 1155 are the ones waiting for BD. I don't see a scenario in which 2011 is as successful as 1366. Which I'm fine with. Maybe Intel will give up next time on this two platform crap when the weak profits show it's not worth the headaches. Just make one good one socket and be done with it. This dividing the base for 0.5% improvement fucking pisses me off. They can stick a damn extreme chip on 1155 if they want a few bucks that badly.
They release stuff that isn't fully complete for people who want it NOW NOW NOW. If you want everything you just need to wait for it to mature a bit. Intel and the other OEM's want money, so they will release boards and such before things are tested and solid. They've always done this kind of thing.
No PCIe 3.0 and no USB3? I guess I'll wait for the next chipset. I had my sights set on SB-E as I don't have any use for Quick Sync.
Separate names with a comma.