Sandy Bridge model numbers revealed

[Chiropteran]

I disagree... only the enthusiast consumer, who builds their own computer from parts, benefits from the AMD path.
The vast majority of consumers BUY a whole system... they benefit from the intel path (where they get up to date, higher quality mobos, instead of obsolete mobos with new CPUs)

Benefit. You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

AMD's path gives choices, Intel's does not. With AMD, you can build a system with the latest CPU's and an older motherboard... or with a newer motherboard. Those people who purchase a system built using an "obsolete" motherboard (obviously the board isn't obsolete, but you used the word) BENEFIT from it by saving money at the cost of possibly missing out on some features they really don't care about. Those who DO care about those features can look for systems built with those features, guaranteeing them the latest AMD chipset.

I don't know if that amounts to a real advantage or not. In the PC world, even if your design doesn't need to be updated, there will be plenty of pressures for you to want to update. New chipsets with new functions will appear, new process technologies will let you produce boards (either of your old design or a new design) at a lower cost, and so forth and so on.

From a raw business point of view, it behooves most mobo manufacturers to keep designing new boards and then selling those new boards.

Look at it this way. System builders are buying boards for AMD systems, one way or another. Either they are buying the cheap older boards, or they are buying the new fancy boards, but either way the board manufacturers are still selling the same basic total number of boards. Either older boards are sold for a longer period of time with the advantages of such, or Idontcare's theory is wrong and AMD system builders are not using older boards as opposed to switching to the new latest and greatest.

Or, to break it down simply, two examples.

1- Intel system builder builds 100 Intel systems over 4 years. 25 of board A, 25 of board B, 25 of board C, 25 of board D.

2- AMD system builder builds 100 AMD systesms over 4 years. Given Idontcare's theory, they use 50 of boardA and 50 of boardC. Given your theory, they use 25 of boardA, 25 of boardB, 25 boardC, and 25 boardD. The point is, either way you break it down they have to buy X motherboards to build X systems, it's not like they are buying less AMD motherboards because of AMD's backwards compatibility.

 

[aigomorla]

so I can run it 24/7 with 21x, or will it downclock when idle?

no u will not get it downclocked on idle if your overclocked.

And downclocking on idle has to do with C1E more so then turbo on.

Benefit. You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

AMD's path gives choices, Intel's does not.

But AMD's are slow.

Infact there almost 1-2 generations slower.

So you have a longer run on an Intel system if you want to look at it from that perspective.

To some Time is money, and AMD does not = time.

 

[taltamir]

I fully understand what "better" means.

AMD's path gives choices, Intel's does not.

And by denying choice to the greedy and exploitative system integrators (dell, HP, apple, etc) intel ensures the end consumer gets a better system.

AMD giving more "choices" hurts mobo makers, and benefits the people who buy their CPUs, whether that is the end consumer (enthusiast) or a system integrator who is going to resell it to an end consumer.

the rotten cherry in the cake of fail, is that system integrators even go so far as to have custom crippled mobos, so you cannot upgrade them yourself in the future.

BENEFIT from it by saving money at the cost of possibly missing out on some features they really don't care about. Those who DO care about those features can look for systems built with those features, guaranteeing them the latest AMD chipset.

The price delta is insignificant to the end customer, but very significant to a system integrator who sells millions of systems. And the "features" in question are mostly unlisted; many just have to do with performance...

 

[Chiropteran]

I fully understand what "better" means.

Since the word in question was "benefit", that statement doesn't reassure me at all.

And by denying choice to the greedy and exploitative system integrators (dell, HP, apple, etc) intel ensures the end consumer gets a better system.

No they don't. It just means the end consumer gets last year's CPU in addition to getting last years MB, because the integrator can't sell the new cpu with the old MB.

the rotten cherry in the cake of fail, is that system integrators even go so far as to have custom crippled mobos, so you cannot upgrade them yourself in the future.

Are you trying to argue that this is only possible with AMD motherboards? I seem to recall Dell using non-standard parts back when they were a pure Intel store, I don't understand why you even bring this up when it has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.

And the "features" in question are mostly unlisted; many just have to do with performance...

Like what? It feels like you are just making this up as you go, can you name some specific features? The only thing I can even think of that makes a noticeable difference among AMD chipsets is DDR3 support, but that also has a clear price-tag associated with it. Other than that, there is crossfire support, which is, well, crippled/impossible even in the NEW intel value boards, so I don't see what sort of argument you could make about it.

But AMD's are slow.

Sure, in the $1100+ price bracket perhaps. For mainstream systems given equal cost the AMD systems are not slow at all. But that isn't really what we were talking about, we were talking about motherboard socket backwards compatibility. Is it a good or a bad thing? It's a good thing, arguing that it is bad is ludicrous.

 

[taltamir]

No they don't. It just means the end consumer gets last year's CPU in addition to getting last years MB, because the integrator can't sell the new cpu with the old MB.

No they don't, because the end consumer typically only knows to ask about the CPU, and nothing but the CPU...

Are you trying to argue that this is only possible with AMD motherboards

No.
I have come across OEM machines based on both AMD and Intel with crippled firmware to limit support for CPU upgrades.

 

[aigomorla]

Sure, in the $1100+ price bracket perhaps. For mainstream systems given equal cost the AMD systems are not slow at all. But that isn't really what we were talking about, we were talking about motherboard socket backwards compatibility. Is it a good or a bad thing? It's a good thing, arguing that it is bad is ludicrous.

then lets look at the laptop line.

Socket P infact Socket478 has been around soooooooooooo rediculously long.

It was finally retired with the i3's and i5's.

you have like 4 derivations of 478 on the laptop side.
GIven they have different NB controllers, but the same can be said for AMD.
And i dont think there is a board socket with a longer life then 478 as far as i know.

 

[DrMrLordX]

...unless the new chipsets entail delivering some truly desirable/necessary features.

And that is the tough sell. What percentage of the market needs/desires Sata 3.0? USB 3.0? DDR3?

Right. And it's AMD's own damn fault that 890GX/FX had so few features that the average consumer might actually want or need. Hell I don't even need SATA3 or USB3. DDR3, fine, I've got that. I love that. The rest of it . . . nahhh.

Intel can get away with chipset sidegrades if they want to, provided they switch sockets or they do something like they did with Clarkdale where you need an H57 or what have you to use the IGP in the CPU package. I mean, really, does H55 or H57 have anything in it that P55 didn't? To my knowledge, no, except the capability to use Clarkdale to its fullest.

AMD can't get away with chipset sidegrades when its the same socket supporting the same CPUs as a whole slew of 7-series boards.

Around here I'd venture to say the biggest reason people upgrade their mobo is simply that the CPU they are upgrading to requires a new socket OR they want better overclocking headroom.

(hence all the core-unlocking and over-clocking marketing that goes into selling the latest AMD mobos)

Right. Sadly, I haven't seen any indication that 890GX or FX are better overclocking platforms (or better for unlocking).

AMD's path gives choices, Intel's does not.

Actually . . . if you're a non-enthusiast looking to buy a low-end AMD desktop, you don't necessarily get that many choices, or not necessarily the choices you'd want.

Just as an example, I ran a froogle search (I know, hardly comprehensive) on 890GX and I came up with a total of four (count them, four) systems, not one of which actually had an Athlon II in it. The lowest-end chip in any of those systems was a Phenom II x2 550 (and that system was not the cheapest!), while one was an x4 965 and the other two had x6 chips. Now what does that tell you?

1). Froogle isn't comprehensive, but still . . .

2). The 890GX hasn't penetrated the budget market. At all.

If I was joe blow and I had heard that AMD launched the Athlon II x2 220 recently, or if I just wanted a CPU that should be cheaper than the x2 550, and if for whatever reason I wanted their best IGP for light gaming and H.264 decoding or something along those lines, obviously I'd want an athlon II x2 on an 890GX. Yes, we all know the 890GX is just a warmed-over 785G with an overclocked IGP, SATA3, etc., but bear with me here; to your average consumer, those bullet points might mean something, and having an extra 200 mhz on the IGP might be good for an OEM buyer that doesn't feel comfortable overclocking.

The sad thing is that you couldn't get that athlon II x2 on an OEM system with an 890GX board, because, to the best of my knowledge, it isn't there, or if it is there, it's difficult to find. Go to Dell.com and look at the Inspiron 570T, which can host (among other things) an Athlon II x2 240 . . . just the chip our example buyer might want! What's the IGP? It's the HD4200 . . . which means it's a 785G chipset. Wah wahhhh. No 890GX for you buddy. You can reconfigure the Inspiron 570T with different processors - all the way down to the lowly Sempron 140 - but you can't get away from the HD4200. In fact, Dell doesn't seem to have a single desktop system using the 890GX. I got bored with the exercise by the time I got to compaq and HP so I just started google searching "HP HD4290" and "HP 890GX" and the like, and came up empty. Now try a search for "compaq HD4200" and see what comes up . . . very enlightening.

I don't think any of the big-box OEMs are using the 890GX.

Look at it this way. System builders are buying boards for AMD systems, one way or another. Either they are buying the cheap older boards, or they are buying the new fancy boards, but either way the board manufacturers are still selling the same basic total number of boards.

Generally speaking, motherboard manufacturers can derive a greater profit margin from selling their latest, most feature-rich products. There is (or certainly seems to be) a glut of AMD boards in the retail channel capable of hosting Phenom II/Athlon II processors which is not the sort of environment where you can keep cranking out your 1-2 year-old board design and expect to reap the same profit margin selling that same board over and over again, especially when there are competitors faced with the same situation.

 

[ydnas7]

775 was around for a while, but was not suitable for nehalem with its IMC
nehalems 2 sockets (dual and tripple channel) won't be suitable for sandbridge with its inbuilt clock-generator. what will inbuilt clockegenerator give, - finer turbo control, so intel can selectively run faster and/or use less energy. important for the laptop and server markets.
Intel's primary reason for new sockets is that currently they are adding new features that realistically need a new socket. Integrated memory controller then integrated graphics, then integrated clock generator - each reason is a valid reason for new incompatible socket.
There is a graphic of the 4 core sandbridge on the net, the dark space on the die would fit a 3rd memory channel beautifully, i guess that either market fatigue at too many intel sockets or OEM fatigue at too many intel sockets or Intel fatigue at too many intel sockets is stopping the 4 core sandy bridge chips coming in 2 socket variants!

 

[Idontcare]

Or, to break it down simply, two examples.

1- Intel system builder builds 100 Intel systems over 4 years. 25 of board A, 25 of board B, 25 of board C, 25 of board D.

2- AMD system builder builds 100 AMD systesms over 4 years. Given Idontcare's theory, they use 50 of boardA and 50 of boardC. Given your theory, they use 25 of boardA, 25 of boardB, 25 boardC, and 25 boardD. The point is, either way you break it down they have to buy X motherboards to build X systems, it's not like they are buying less AMD motherboards because of AMD's backwards compatibility.

Intel has 80% market share...so the total volume opportunity for Intel kits is 4x that of AMD.

You keep setting the volume opportunity to be the same for your AMD vs Intel scenarios which is simply not the case. It is not 100 intel boards over 4 yrs versus 100 amd boards over four years. It would be 400 intel boards versus 100 amd boards in your example.

This is where the return on investment, ROI, really hits hard on the AMD board designers versus the Intel ones which is what drives the feedback cycle that determines at the business decision level how much (and when) a board designer is going to make further investments into designing their next-gen amd board.

 

[ydnas7]

i would expect the trend to keep moving chipset functionality onto the cpu die will continue, don't get too addicted to your socket, perhaps 2011 quad memory socket will be around for a while, but anything laptop derived will continue a rapid socket development.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I keep saying this, but don't rely on the rumors of the 4-channel LGA2011 socket being for PC. It'll still be LGA 136x 3-channel.

What Intel will be doing is creating a more PC-like MP platform to compete better against the Opterons that feature less RAS than the high-end chips like Dunnington and Nehalem-EX, yet is substantially cheaper and have good memory performance for non-commercial apps.

 

[bryanW1995]

no u will not get it downclocked on idle if your overclocked.

And downclocking on idle has to do with C1E more so then turbo on.

Ok, thanks. now running at 21x178 w/ HT.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I keep saying this, but don't rely on the rumors of the 4-channel LGA2011 socket being for PC. It'll still be LGA 136x 3-channel.

There was supposed to be an LGA1365 to replace LGA1366, but most mention of that has faded in the past few months.

 

[taltamir]

Right. And it's AMD's own damn fault that 890GX/FX had so few features that the average consumer might actually want or need. Hell I don't even need SATA3 or USB3. DDR3, fine, I've got that. I love that. The rest of it . . . nahhh.

and how much money they save by not including those?
Would you as an end consumer pay 5 extra dollars for those features? probably yes; it will give you a bit of forward compatibility.
would a company that ships millions of systems willingly pay 5$ extra per system for those? not a chance.

of course they could just ASK... but:
1. this is more work for them.
2. they like producing custom crippled boards... dell and the like don't have a "normal" mobo like you would get from mobo makers... their mobos lack bios support for many CPUs, they have only 2 slots for RAM, they are basically an odd and super crappy build meant to be unusable for any potential modifications you want to do to the system...

I upgraded my dads dell recently... PSU, mobo, and case both had to go in the trash...

And god forbid you try to actually RESELL components of the computer... "dell unnamed mobo with crap bios, missing features, only works in a specific case since it doesn't have a modular back panel..." ha, good luck selling that.

Now, the above are not eliminated by making new CPUs require new chipsets, but it makes it more costly... and thus makes companies less likely to go this route. still, some of them are bound to.
I am sure dell will continue to get specially made crippled hardware made for its systems. but smaller, less evil companies might just chose not to bother with it.

 

[DrMrLordX]

and how much money they save by not including those?
Would you as an end consumer pay 5 extra dollars for those features? probably yes; it will give you a bit of forward compatibility.
would a company that ships millions of systems willingly pay 5$ extra per system for those? not a chance.

Exactly. That's why you don't see chipsets like the 890GX out there in OEM systems, when they can use the 785G (or something else entirely) at a lower price. The consumer's somehwhat-lukewarm desire to buy features in the chipset that costs $5 more isn't strong enough to affect sales, so the OEM will just do as it pleases and sell product anyway. Well, that's one reason anyway.

And of course, expect your 785G board to be crippled so you can't upgrade it by hand to a CPU that Dell/HP/whoever never intended to operate in that model. Worst of both worlds.

 

[IntelUser2000]

There was supposed to be an LGA1365 to replace LGA1366, but most mention of that has faded in the past few months.

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/364/200/html/04.jpg.html
http://www.4gamer.net/games/098/G009883/20100526034/

I know what other sites have been said, but might have been misguided.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Ah, LGA1356? Hmm. Now I'm even more confused.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Ah, LGA1356? Hmm. Now I'm even more confused.

What the...? I just noticed that.

 

[Bateluer]

Am I the only one who thinks the whole model number thing has gotten entirely out of hand? If it takes a CS degree to decipher your product line, that's not a good thing. There's no way a non-computer person is going to be able to accurately figure out what model is better and delivers the best bang for their dollar. Even the computer people have a hard time with it.

Or, is that the point?

 

[taltamir]

Am I the only one who thinks the whole model number thing has gotten entirely out of hand? If it takes a CS degree to decipher your product line, that's not a good thing. There's no way a non-computer person is going to be able to accurately figure out what model is better and delivers the best bang for their dollar. Even the computer people have a hard time with it.

Or, is that the point?

that IS the whole point indeed.
Combining a very confusing naming scheme + sell & manufacturing of already obsolete hardware = profit.
While you could say its praying on consumers (it does), you could also say that anyone who doesn't even bother to do a 5 minute google search shouldn't complain... But it is still very annoying.

 

[extra]

What the...? I just noticed that.

I thought that was going to be socket 2011 instead? Gah, so confusing.

Intel should stick with the Core name, then just use the numbers or whatever....kinda late for that now though (nehalem coulda been core3, sandy bridge coulda been core4.)

Since they fubared that, sandy bridge could be like "Core i4, Core i6, Core i8" or something...shrug.

 

[DrMrLordX]

There is going to be LGA2011. That is presumably going to be a quad-channel MP-capable socket for 1P or 2P systems, I think.

The idea being that Intel may have canned LGA1365/LGA1356(?!?) and forced their enthusiast class into a desktop/workstation-ized version of the LGA2011 platform, or . . . something.

Honestly it's not clear what they're doing to replace 1366. The only thing that's clear is that 1366's days are numbered.