Intel LGA1155 P67/Z68/Z77, Sandy/Ivy Bridge Architecture
|
|
 Aug 10 2011, 07:22 AM
Return to original view | Post
#81
|
 
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Mordor, Middle Earth.  
|
Did u guys visit Asrock global website? it has a video posting taunting all other mobo manufacturer that dont have all kind of x feature @ x price range.
 The most funniest thing is they put their parent company Asus first in the comparison lol then go into the individual mobo sites they are comparing the Xusb 3.0 vs Asus. I guess it is time to climb above Asus?  This post has been edited by billytong: Aug 10 2011, 07:26 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13 2011, 09:20 AM
Return to original view | Post
#82
|
|
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Mordor, Middle Earth.
|
QUOTE(AlamakLor @ Aug 12 2011, 10:22 AM) He had both and is using Asus now, so you can guess which one he prefers. Gigabyte isn't bad by any means and the general consensus is that it takes a little more effort to OC on gigabyte than on Asus. However, one issue that plagues Gigabyte is boot loop (you can google this or look up on overclock.net). Personally I've also experienced this on an older board. However, Gigabyte's distro in Msia happens to be one of the best Distro Agreed, The boot loop crap is the whole reason why I never bother buying gigabyte again. till today I still have this problem on my 775 mobo.  Asus is meh in comparison infact it will always boot loop twice when the CPU is OCed. <-- I force to leave my nice Pentium Dual-core E5800 @ stock due to this reason. E5800 can easily hit 4GHz but it wouldnt worth the 20% gain by going BIOS OC & have boot loop issue everytime I on my PC. This post has been edited by billytong: Aug 13 2011, 09:48 AM |
|
|
Sep 14 2011, 11:14 AM
Return to original view | Post
#83
|
|
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Mordor, Middle Earth.
|
QUOTE(Raki @ Sep 10 2011, 11:28 PM) are we going back to the it ain't hardcore unless it's hexacore statements again? Well with SB being able to hit over 4.5Ghz on air easily. There is no reason to upgrade to Ivy, because I am sure with just 22nm die shrink, Intel in noway will release a stock 4.5Ghz Ivy. At most I'll give them 4Ghz, which isnt really a significant upgrade over 2500K/2600K. Even if u include OC, it probably give u just another 500-1Ghz more over an OCed SB. An additional 2 cores will be much better. I am sticking with my 2500K unless Intel release a 6 core 1155. This post has been edited by billytong: Sep 14 2011, 11:19 AM |
|
|
Sep 14 2011, 03:49 PM
Return to original view | Post
#84
|
|
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Mordor, Middle Earth.
|
QUOTE(k!nex @ Sep 14 2011, 03:17 PM) It wont have any difference than the quads unless the software developers make heavily threaded software to make use of the 5th and 6th core. thats the point of having Hex core because the quad 2500/2600K already very OCable. It make little sense to spend money upgrading again its like upgrading qx6800 to qx9650. Look at this 2600k vs 3960X. 2600k is still so damm strong against the 6 core 3960X in games. But base on this IDF slides, I guess thats pretty clear. No Hex core 1155 for now.  may be it is the reason why SB-E exist, because if Ivy is hex core, SB-E wouldnt sell. |
|
|
Sep 16 2011, 12:02 PM
Return to original view | Post
#85
|
|
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Mordor, Middle Earth.
|
QUOTE(Ulysses @ Sep 16 2011, 08:04 AM) so it still DDR3..err about that DDR4 by samsung, which board will utilise it? A single channel DDR3 1333 is enough to feed Sandy bridge. We have up to DDR3 2133 and dual/quad channel. Why bother changing? Sticking to DDR3 until it is too slow is good for consumer and manufacturer |
|
|
Sep 18 2011, 10:06 PM
Return to original view | Post
#86
|
|
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Mordor, Middle Earth.
|
Major fail.
 http://www.anandtech.com/show/4830/intels-...cture-exposed/6 According to anandtech's article that Intel Ivy bridge for 1155 only get performance improve like 10% @ same price point which also includes the higher clock frequency. Majority of the 22nm process shrink benefit goes to GPU. and still 4 cores. No 4+GHz stock clock CPU:  This post has been edited by billytong: Sep 18 2011, 10:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2011, 08:55 AM
Return to original view | Post
#87
|
|
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Mordor, Middle Earth.
|
QUOTE(yinchet @ Sep 19 2011, 03:30 AM) TBH, I was hoping to see 15-20% of improvement in processing power. Same thing a 15-20% increase should be reasonable, had they didnt put the benefit towards GPU. Besides being half the size of SB should allow IB to have 6 cores on a same die area but Intel didnt wanna do it to kill SB-E. anyway it is still too soon to say anything about the improvement until we see some benchmark. It seems to me that Hexa core Intel CPU will be exclusive for Enthusiast market for a while. |
|
|
Sep 19 2011, 12:26 PM
Return to original view | Post
#88
|
|
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Mordor, Middle Earth.
|
QUOTE(dma0991 @ Sep 19 2011, 11:39 AM) 15-20% improvement is too optimistic. You're looking at improvement that happened from Nehalem to Sandy Bridge. Even a die shrinked Nehalem, Westmere didn't have a 15-20% improvement over Nehalem. it looks at it is that there is no strong reason to upgrade from 2500k unless the OC headroom on the new IB is a lot better to justify it. I too was hoping Hexa core for 1155. Seems I am too optimisticIt is normal practice that you wouldn't want your products to compete with each other. That is why you wouldn't see a SB Core i3 21xxK as it is definitely going to have a negative impact on the sales of Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600K. Now the current race is not so much about raw performance but reasonable amount of performance or similar amount of performance but with less power. The mobile market currently is way larger than the desktop market. |
|
|
Sep 23 2011, 05:02 PM
Return to original view | Post
#89
|
|
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Mordor, Middle Earth.
|
perhaps the only reason I can think of is the 3.6GHz 4 core LGA2011. They "Intel" might not want a 1155 CPU beating 2011 4 core for the moment.
|
|
|
May 19 2012, 12:39 PM
Return to original view | Post
#90
|
|
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Mordor, Middle Earth.
|
QUOTE(diaBoliQu3 @ May 18 2012, 04:52 PM) http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2556487 It is unlikely they will fix that thing. IB are working fine under stock speed. Will Intel fix this? Or should we buy IB then change the TIM? Hehe... I wouldn't take the risk to open up my cpu. |
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: |  0.0477sec
 0.55
 7 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 6th December 2025 - 07:54 PM |
Quote