Jeez - looking at those charts makes me want to wait for Socket 2011 (or 1356)
My unborn SandyBridge desktop is already a weakling on the playground!
1355 could be a typo and reference to 1356, shown here.
Jeez - looking at those charts makes me want to wait for Socket 2011 (or 1356)
My unborn SandyBridge desktop is already a weakling on the playground!
jebus.. 20 meg cache?
this is why i am so waiting for LGA2011.
Honestly, the multi on the 950 is high enough that it being locked doesn't matter.I'd say its a no brainer.... if you can wait the extra 1.5months...
A) 3.4Ghz instead of 3.06Ghz
B) 32nm ~ 45nm
C) Unlocked ~ locked multiplier
D) Faster clock, but also, clock for clock the SB is faster as well..
You're gonna have to sell your firstborn though. I think it will be expensive.
My only concern would be buying into a brand-new, relatively un-debugged platform.
I don't see how what I said is bashing anything. But nothing is ever free, and this is no exception. I don't feel that Intel was foolish by developing a better integrated graphics platform at the expense of other options, but to say that there was no expense at all is patently untrue.
I don't see how what I said is bashing anything. But nothing is ever free, and this is no exception. I don't feel that Intel was foolish by developing a better integrated graphics platform at the expense of other options, but to say that there was no expense at all is patently untrue.
This was from a poster in another site, I'm going to put it in a way I understood:
With Moore's Law, and ever increasing transistor budgets plus the problem of delivering value(because consumers still can't use 8+ threads effectively), they added the GPU. Probably better to fill the fabs few % more rather than worrying about the cost of production which for a lithography monster like Intel isn't a lot.
Minor increases in production costs and R&D gets Intel lot of things:
-More laptops
-Slows GPGPU and GPUs in general
-Buy Sandy Bridge rather than older/cheaper CPU + discrete graphics
-Vast majority of the people use integrated graphics. R&D costs are made up here already.
I'm pretty sure there are indirect benefits to GPU integration, they probably learned to make a better CPU when trying to figure out how to best integrate the GPU.
Can someone explain to me what the logic would be behind buying the i5-2300 ? Why on earth would anyone do so, when you can get the 11% faster i5-2400 for $7 more ?
One more thing stuns my mind is that why Intel is releasing more similar series. I mean to say,Instead of working on making cheap 6 cores and further 8 and 12 cores cpus, why it is focusing more on dual and quad cores only? Who is going to buy quad cores when AMD will be giving 12 cores at the time?
One more thing stuns my mind is that why Intel is releasing more similar series. I mean to say,Instead of working on making cheap 6 cores and further 8 and 12 cores cpus, why it is focusing more on dual and quad cores only? Who is going to buy quad cores when AMD will be giving 12 cores at the time?
My biggest gripe is that with SB I'm buying a GPU I'll never use, and paying for it and having it add to the heat dissipation and wattage. I this a valid concern?
Huh?
So we have a SB chip with lower TDP wattage, faster speed, better clock for clock, includes integrated graphics, and its the same price.
But you're bashing it because it "could" have been even faster in the CPU had they not chosen to spend time or money developing the graphics?
This was from a poster in another site, I'm going to put it in a way I understood:
With Moore's Law, and ever increasing transistor budgets plus the problem of delivering value(because consumers still can't use 8+ threads effectively), they added the GPU. Probably better to fill the fabs few % more rather than worrying about the cost of production which for a lithography monster like Intel isn't a lot.
Minor increases in production costs and R&D gets Intel lot of things:
-More laptops
-Slows GPGPU and GPUs in general
-Buy Sandy Bridge rather than older/cheaper CPU + discrete graphics
-Vast majority of the people use integrated graphics. R&D costs are made up here already.
I'm pretty sure there are indirect benefits to GPU integration, they probably learned to make a better CPU when trying to figure out how to best integrate the GPU.
Intel, and to some extent AMD have a problem. There's a limit to how fast they can spin the processor clock. It's a basic physics/materials problem they so far haven't been able to get around. This is why we're not seeing 20 GHz processors.
But Moore's law is still intact, so far. They can shove morn and more devices on the die. But there's only so much they can do with with basic processing. Software, at least on the desktop, hasn't really even caught up with quad core processing (this is not true on the server side), so there's a point of diminishing returns with stuffing more cores on the die.
So, they're now trying to pull more of the auxilliary chips onto the CPU die. The memory controller, the PCI controller (essentially everything that used to be the northbridge), the graphics controller/accelerator, etc.. I'm sure the southbridge will end up on there soon. Give it enough years, and they'll be a 100GB SSD built into the CPU.
Basically, if they want to sell new CPUs, this is the only path to take. There's just a limit to how much value they can add with basic processing.
Where's the point of diminishing returns on adding cores? Can most of the software we have now even make use of dual core, let alone 6 or 8?
The same is true of adding more cache, or expanding the ISA to include more and more corner-case instructions.
Turbo-mode is intended to address this.
Martimus is a well respected poster here, if your perception of one of his posts is that he is "bashing" anything then really you are better off just assuming you completely misunderstood whatever it was that he meant to communicate with his post and as such your best path forward is to seek clarification on the post posthaste.
Anything less is usually just going to amount to being a waste of your time, or his, or all of the above.
I wish, if deadline for poll can be extended for some more days. I just had set it for 4-5 days. sorry for that guys. I had thought I would take a decision by this weekend but its just getting late but for some good reason I guess. But I want to thanks everyone for bringing so many valuable suggestions and points. Most importantly I don't think its a question of waiting for a month or so but rather it is now a question of What people will buy after 2 months, i.e. I79XX series or SB.
Now just take CPU aside. Its just going to some ghz difference between 950 and i7 2600k. I didn't know there was a gpu in-build in SB CPU. . Now lets focus more on GPU. considering inbuild GPU inside new I72600k and comparing it with say, GTX 460,what will your prefer? I mean what people will buy after 2 months, an I7950 with external GPU or I72600k with inbuild GPU. I can understand that no one could give exact view but I just want to know based on your experiences.
Perhaps "bashing" was not the correct word choice - for that I apologize, Martimus. I think he was adding extra thought and complexity from an engineer's standpoint to a simple statement that was made about "getting a GPU for free", as in, no GPU on Intel today, yes GPU on Intel tomorrow, same price, all equals a "free" addition of GPU to the customer.
No worries on my end - thanks Martimus