- Sep 7, 2011
- 2,785 (1.03/day)
- New Zealand
|Processor||2600K @ 4.8|
|Cooling||AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower|
|Memory||16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8|
|Video Card(s)||GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)|
|Storage||Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)|
|Display(s)||Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS|
|Case||NZXT Switch 810|
|Audio Device(s)||onboard Realtek yawn edition|
|Power Supply||Seasonic X-1050|
|Benchmark Scores||3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.|
I agree with you on the first part, but think about this: where will haswell fit in here?
Because it could end up being almost as fast as the 6 core SB-e (or even Ivy-e), so what's the point of socket 2011 on consumer side?
Other than the workload, everything else comes down to supply and demand.
The 6 cores version probably are defective chips (2 locked cores), it's cheaper to produce only one die and then lock the cores (the same way AMD did it).Same thing happened on socket 1366 with Xeons, they had 6 core and 4 core versions built on 32nm and both were from the same die.
FWIW: 32nm Gulftown/Westmere also had a 2-core variant ( 4 inactive cores), the X5698, that was built primarily for high clockspeed and lightly threaded application. From what I understand, the inactive cores weren't defective- just fused off to allow higher frequency of the two active cores. It also retained all other aspects of the 6-core variants (full cache, max QPI etc.)