Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by MxPhenom 216, Jan 27, 2011.
overclocked my netbook works good undervolt+overclock
Well i was only buying sandy bridge for the lower power consumption/ temps and ease of overclocking to be honest.
When it comes to gaming which is my main concern, My Q6600 still kicks ass. even with just one card running blackops on full everything, I still see 100fps minimum mostly and max anywhere up to 180fps mark never drops below my refresh rate. So im not having to upgrade at all, Its more wanting to for the above reasons.
Damn if I had a Core i7 920 I wouldn't give a rats ass about Sandy crack. Shit... I hardly do already! Overclock oversmock. Sure it's nice but the general public doesn't care. The fact they have the on die video on the quad core is honestly the biggest reason the average customer should even care about Sandy bridge if you ask me and even than who wants a quad core with IGP? Such a small minority who would truly want that.
Don't get me wrong. It's great and if I was building a new Intel system of course I would be using it. But for the average user who already has a quad core i5 or i7 it just seems so.... pointless.
Pointless? I'm I being unfair... I dunno. Man. Intel had no competition. Why even come out with a new socket so soon? Don't they remember how pissed everyone was when AMD flew through s754 and s939 too quickly?
Fuck.... I'm I just getting old? I don't like change anymore?
Sandy Bridge just isn't that appealing to me... at all! Honestly affordable SSDs and new Sand Force controllers... that's WAY more appealing than Sandy Bridge to me.
socket 939 went from 2004 until 2006 with the intro of AM2 however new boards were intro'd until 2009 (asrock s939 785G+Sb710)
socket 754 went in in H2 2003 and ended in 2006 like socket 939
LGA 1156 was intro'd in 2009 LGA 1155 in Q1 2011 same life span as the AMD sockets
just some numbers for thought
Yeah but 1156 to 1155 in under 2 years? That's crazy if you ask me. I thought AM2/AM2+ and 775 showed the world that we don't need to change the socket every 2 years. Only when there was a REAL reason to. I mean 775 was around for what... 5 years?
Besides look at 939 to AM2. It was mainly to support the newer DDR2 right? There should only be a new socket because it has to support some BIG change in the industry. Be it going to 64-bit processors with 754, going to multi-core processors with 775 and 939, getting triple channel DDR3 support with 1366 or getting DDR3 for AMD with AM3. I love it when a new socket comes out because there's a whole new technology to go with it. That makes it exciting and it makes more sense to push it on us. With all these socket changes (and the new chipsets that came with them) there was one big change or new technology to go with it so we knew why we had a new socket. That's what made it appealing. I mean going from DDR to DDR2, going to new 64-bit processors, going from single core to dual core processors, getting DDR3 support or triple channel DDR3 bandwidth were all BIG reasons to want a new socket.
But 1156 to 1155... why? I bet most of us can't actually answer why there's a new socket. I mean what at the low level is this socket actually giving us that 1156 couldn't? What's the big reason for it? I'm guessing there's a reason but it's certainly nothing that springs out at me and I mean sure if there was competition from AMD and for whatever reason they needed to change the socket to up performance and stay competitive okay fine but we all know that wasn't the case. I thought 1155 was going to bring us quad channel DDR3? So does this mean there's going to be another new socket next year when AMD has it?
I guess all I'm saying is most socket changes brought some new technology along with them and this one didn't. So it doesn't seem like a major upgrade, just a minor step up in evolution. Like I said it's not "bad" but at the same time it's not really all that appealing. Not to me anyway.
I mean if your upgrading from a Core 2 Quad with DDR2 or something... yeah Sandy Bridge is appealing.
But if you already have a Core i5 or Core i7.... it just shouldn't be.
Well that's an overclocking ethic difference. I always go for 100mhz increments because pushing the chip to the exact mhz it's stable at just makes me uncomfortable. I like the buffer. Same with the memory, but I'm lucky with 2400mhz sticks. I can scale with whatever sandy will provide.
The easy thing is I guess dependent on your chip. I had to make just as many bios changes for 5 ghz on SB as I did for 4.2 on 1366.
About 2011, did they actually confirm it supports blck overclocking?
sandy bridge is aweful tempting... I want to build a kick-frikken-ass mini ITX build this year with a sandy bridge quad and a GTX560.
it has a kill switch and DRM ties to the CPU, maybe that couldn't be done on 1156 We at least know it wasnt due to the GPU, i3 has those.
Thank god the plug socket never needs changing lol to power all this crap up.
Why is Sandy Bridge so appealing?
Because you spend too much time reading benchmarks and not enough time paying attention to everything else you use your pc for. If you did then you'd realize that there is no "real world" difference to the extent that it is noticeable.
Example: MaxxMem is a nice quick bench and will show difference between 1600mhz 7-7-7-20 and 9-9-9-24. Set up those timings though and you'll be able to run a numerically lower refresh (tREF) with the higher timings and you'll notice that the desktop is a lot snappier. So MaxxMem =! real life.
Finally......I found a perfect cpu for my daily rig build...2600k, it will replace my old FX60
Oh? Then the real world is a fan of sandy bridges. I broke the records mofo! http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=2172834&postcount=194
Yes, it does feel snappier than my 1366.
Yea I saw that and was like
Does the who chip run at one speed ala Athlon 64 or what? Maybe I didn't read the reviews closely enough but I don't remember anyone mentioning it.
Possible? My 860 already feels super-fast
let me see if i can get numa working correctly on my server lol want to see PC4200 break those scores?
It's similar, I imagine, to how AM3 socket users have gone on about it being snappier than their i7 builds. It's hard to quantify.
just saying bandwidth is bandwidth and alot of other chips offer more. current AMD server chips have a form of quad channel and numa which in a 4 chip server could give a theoretical 16 channel bandwidth 16 channels of 1066 DDR3 is quite quick. remember this is all theory and not everything even uses NUMA
It is appealing cos of wanton consumerism. Nothing more.
If you already have a i7 920 set-up, then a 2600K makes no sense whatsoever. The real world performance figures are far from mind-blowing.
I am still sitting with a E8400 set-up and am itching to upgrade...but Sandy Bridge just dont cut it.
Went from a P55 to P67 cause I can
I am happy with my i7 920 and will be for a long time to come. Same goes for my 5970. When I start having problems running games is when I will upgrade. Untill then it would be throwing money away as I have done many times before trying to keep up with the Jones's.
SB hasn't been very interesting for me since I don't see big improvements over my i7-870.
However, I've been dying to build a mini-itx X6 rig for a while now. I haven't build an AMD rig for almost a year. It's time to give an AMD shot.
For me at least.
PC being snappier is all about SSD, babie, heh. SSD is probably the biggest upgrade for any PC since it solves a major bottleneck in daily computing.
For me it has none. I have yet to see a board with a PCI slot so its a deal breaker for me. I won't upgrade without my Fatality as I paid alot for it and it sounds and works great for me.
I am in need of an upgrade and Bulldozer so far has more appeal to me.
Sandy bridge does look tempting. Not too expensive for a CPU and Mobo, DDR3 prices have been falling like crazy (at least since I last looked them up!), they are pretty efficient and overclock like monsters.
Right now my main rig is down, awaiting either a new bios chip, or a new motherboard. But If I am going to get a new board, the i5-2500k sure does look tempting.
Personally, I'm waiting to see what Ivy Bridge and Bulldozer bring to the market. Worst case scenario I wait a bit longer for a new rig. Best case scenario : Price War!
To the guy who started the thread : It's your money, if you really want to upgrade go ahead. But there is bigger and better platforms right around the corner.
Though I had an 970 and it's technically a downgrade, for what I do, I'll see more util out of the 2500k and its 4.7ghz OC
Separate names with a comma.