You can get 4.2 ghz with the 2600 . If your not a gamer H is way to go . As it is I have to buy 2 z series chipset M/B. 1 for self and one to replace the one thats in another system . I also have to replace the 6970 with a 6990. As per agreement.
You should read AT article on Z series chipset . It brings more than just QS.
I'm VERY disappointed by all this.
First, QS is obviously only 1 simple incarnation of a much broader possible GPGPU scenarios. Under P67, Sandy bridge has a dead piece of silicone inside it. This is simply unacceptable. I want Direct compute. I want open CL. I want the GPGPU part of the equation to be available to accelerate my PC games and applications. Even with a discrete GPU, I still want to have the integrated one to be available. Why not use it for physics in game for example?
Don't tell me there are insurmountable technicals challenges impossible to solve in order to build a P67 type chip that would give you access to the GPU section any time you want! Come on.... There must be a way to acces the GPU silicon even without a second monitor connected. This is 2011, not 1956 for Christ sake.
Second, no Vt-D on the K series? WTH??? This one is utterly stupid. There is no technical argument for this one, it's purely a marketing decision and a retarded one at that. Win 7 pro is already coming with visualization built-in. Visualization of all sort is the new bridge to backward compatibility. Even at home, I use it all the time with DOSbox, Vmware and many other emulators. It's not like chopping level 3 cache by half where you have less of something. Instead, Intel REMOVED the functionality 100%. What a shame, especially when you consider it's the more expensive models that are castrated...
The lack of native USB3 is also getting on my nerves and the SATA 3 implementation feel like a rushed afterthought simply bolted on the older silicon. Why we don't have 6 SATA 3 ports on H/P67 is beyond me.
So in the end, Intel removed 1 pin requiring a brand new motherboard, artificially created ''overclock only'' more expensive product. At the same time, they stare at you right in eyes and tell you that on top, the GPGPU part on the equation will not be available and that Vt-D has been disabled.
Only 2 SATA 3 port and added cost for an external UBAS3 controller.
All this is very insulting coming from Intel. Asking premium dollars for the premium platform and getting shafted like that... It look like my next build with a P67 and 2600K won't materialize. I'll wait for bulldozer too or for Intel to come to its sense with the hypothetical Z68 and 2700K that will give me GPGPU no matter what, overclocking and Vt-D.
I just won't settle for less. I will not invest my hard earned cash in a costly and crippled platform that perform only marginally better than the previous generation and is on top plagued by so many limitations that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Ramon
What system are you upgrading from?I'm VERY disappointed by all this.
First, QS is obviously only 1 simple incarnation of a much broader possible GPGPU scenarios. Under P67, Sandy bridge has a dead piece of silicone inside it. This is simply unacceptable. I want Direct compute. I want open CL. I want the GPGPU part of the equation to be available to accelerate my PC games and applications. Even with a discrete GPU, I still want to have the integrated one to be available. Why not use it for physics in game for example?
Don't tell me there are insurmountable technicals challenges impossible to solve in order to build a P67 type chip that would give you access to the GPU section any time you want! Come on.... There must be a way to acces the GPU silicon even without a second monitor connected. This is 2011, not 1956 for Christ sake.
Second, no Vt-D on the K series? WTH??? This one is utterly stupid. There is no technical argument for this one, it's purely a marketing decision and a retarded one at that. Win 7 pro is already coming with visualization built-in. Visualization of all sort is the new bridge to backward compatibility. Even at home, I use it all the time with DOSbox, Vmware and many other emulators. It's not like chopping level 3 cache by half where you have less of something. Instead, Intel REMOVED the functionality 100%. What a shame, especially when you consider it's the more expensive models that are castrated...
The lack of native USB3 is also getting on my nerves and the SATA 3 implementation feel like a rushed afterthought simply bolted on the older silicon. Why we don't have 6 SATA 3 ports on H/P67 is beyond me.
So in the end, Intel removed 1 pin requiring a brand new motherboard, artificially created ''overclock only'' more expensive product. At the same time, they stare at you right in eyes and tell you that on top, the GPGPU part on the equation will not be available and that Vt-D has been disabled.
Only 2 SATA 3 port and added cost for an external UBAS3 controller.
All this is very insulting coming from Intel. Asking premium dollars for the premium platform and getting shafted like that... It look like my next build with a P67 and 2600K won't materialize. I'll wait for bulldozer too or for Intel to come to its sense with the hypothetical Z68 and 2700K that will give me GPGPU no matter what, overclocking and Vt-D.
I just won't settle for less. I will not invest my hard earned cash in a costly and crippled platform that perform only marginally better than the previous generation and is on top plagued by so many limitations that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Ramon
I'm VERY disappointed by all this.
First, QS is obviously only 1 simple incarnation of a much broader possible GPGPU scenarios. Under P67, Sandy bridge has a dead piece of silicone inside it. This is simply unacceptable. I want Direct compute. I want open CL. I want the GPGPU part of the equation to be available to accelerate my PC games and applications. Even with a discrete GPU, I still want to have the integrated one to be available. Why not use it for physics in game for example?
Don't tell me there are insurmountable technicals challenges impossible to solve in order to build a P67 type chip that would give you access to the GPU section any time you want! Come on.... There must be a way to acces the GPU silicon even without a second monitor connected. This is 2011, not 1956 for Christ sake.
Second, no Vt-D on the K series? WTH??? This one is utterly stupid. There is no technical argument for this one, it's purely a marketing decision and a retarded one at that. Win 7 pro is already coming with visualization built-in. Visualization of all sort is the new bridge to backward compatibility. Even at home, I use it all the time with DOSbox, Vmware and many other emulators. It's not like chopping level 3 cache by half where you have less of something. Instead, Intel REMOVED the functionality 100%. What a shame, especially when you consider it's the more expensive models that are castrated...
The lack of native USB3 is also getting on my nerves and the SATA 3 implementation feel like a rushed afterthought simply bolted on the older silicon. Why we don't have 6 SATA 3 ports on H/P67 is beyond me.
So in the end, Intel removed 1 pin requiring a brand new motherboard, artificially created ''overclock only'' more expensive product. At the same time, they stare at you right in eyes and tell you that on top, the GPGPU part on the equation will not be available and that Vt-D has been disabled.
Only 2 SATA 3 port and added cost for an external UBAS3 controller.
All this is very insulting coming from Intel. Asking premium dollars for the premium platform and getting shafted like that... It look like my next build with a P67 and 2600K won't materialize. I'll wait for bulldozer too or for Intel to come to its sense with the hypothetical Z68 and 2700K that will give me GPGPU no matter what, overclocking and Vt-D.
I just won't settle for less. I will not invest my hard earned cash in a costly and crippled platform that perform only marginally better than the previous generation and is on top plagued by so many limitations that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Ramon
Its a little half baked as releases go.
No USB3, no gpu with overclocking, no 23.97 playback, and HD 3000 only on the K cpu's is a bit of an odd decision.
Would have been better waiting a few months to get these things right.
But I should spend the extra to get the 2600K even with H67 mobo right? Because then I have the HD3000 graphics, which is better for QuickSync than the HD2000. Or are they the same for QuickSync? I gotta re-read the review again. Like Vinny Barbarino in Welcome Back Kotter, "I'm so confused....."