Twist86
Active Member
I am sorry mind rephrasing that for me because overclocking does nothing to data going in and out of the machine as long as its stable.
Your Opinion: Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge
- Thread starter spynoodle
- Start date
I am sorry mind rephrasing that for me because overclocking does nothing to data going in and out of the machine as long as its stable.
FuryRosewood
Active Member
not sure how to explain it, but i do know when i have overclocked my video cards, i got massive bus noise over my onboard sound, which was a way of what goes in, isnt always what comes out...which is why i stay stock from now on, at least video card wise, not sure if the cpu has any issues there...but there may be a possibility there. mainly with a overclock id be afraid of running any software based raid configurations, even if its stable, id be afraid of some sort of noise somewhere messing with things. i think this is why intel is tying everything together.
Remeniz
New Member
Yea I read that but like they say, I reckon Intel will force the OC enthusiast to buy the premium chips.
Nothing to do with ensuring safe data throughput; any data corrucption will usually give a BSOD, freeze or some kind of error. An OC can be just as stable as stock speeds.
Thats not it at all.
98% of their market share is OEM anyway. Which means no overclocking options the the bios. Its all about money. If your a enthuthiast (build your own) and want a higher clocked CPU, there going to make you pay for it. Plain and simple!
FuryRosewood
Active Member
recanting what ive said about the chipset design, according to the rep sources that was being told to the reseller i know, the design is to get overclockers to buy more expensive CPUs, and thats a freaking joke...looks like this may be intel's vista, in a way
Twist86
Active Member
Ah I see thanks for clarifying that. I personally think they are just getting greedy.
I mean Q6600 = 2.4ghz stock most get 3.2ghz-3.6ghz out of it. I7 people get 4.0ghz out of it thus they sell less $600 chips because the $250 does the same thing.
But who knows.....I do know I wont buy it and will go with AMD unless they also do it (which is highly doubtful)
FuryRosewood
Active Member
according to the rep twist, thats exactly what it is, theres no reason for this right now other then them wanting clockers to buy their ExtremelyExpensive chips
maroon1
New Member
Those who say that Sandy-bridge can't overclock are very wrong. All Sandy-bridge CPUs are going to overclock. But the ones that don't have fully unlocked multi are going to have limited overclocking ability
As you see above, intel is going to make sandybridge CPUs with either partially unlocked multi, or with fully unlocked multi (like i7 875K).
You can overclock the ones with partially unlocked multi, but there are going to be a limit. (for example you could overclock to 4.5GHz, but you won't able to go any higher)
On the other hand the ones with fully unlocked multi won't have any limited overclocking ability
As you see above, intel is going to make sandybridge CPUs with either partially unlocked multi, or with fully unlocked multi (like i7 875K).
You can overclock the ones with partially unlocked multi, but there are going to be a limit. (for example you could overclock to 4.5GHz, but you won't able to go any higher)
On the other hand the ones with fully unlocked multi won't have any limited overclocking ability
Last edited:
ScottALot
Active Member
Hey, ATi pulled a fast one on nVidia, I think AMD could do the same to intel. However, the whole "lets add more cores" thing seems a little immature. You can relate having more cores to having more GPUs in a system sometimes, and I think this is one of those times. Lets say there's one rig with 4 5770s in CFX and another with two 5870s in CFX. I don't have any numbers, but my bet's on the 5870s because they're better cards and having two of them means that each one should be worth the investment. The 5770s on the other hand, will have issues with getting info across the cards fast enough, so minimal performance improvements will be seen. If the Bulldozers could completely shut off some cores if you chose to, that would be pretty cool because you'd get a better cross-core efficiency and if you were doing something like video rendering then you could turn on all of them and get the rendering done fast, but you'd have to be ready for heat. The Sandy Bridge idea is pretty cool, bringing the power of a quad-core to the average user, but that's just improving off of the Phenom II X4s or Athlon II X4s. Recently, AMD has been improving on Intel's ideas brought to the table. For example, after the Core2Quads came the Phenom II X4s (and maybe the Athlons too?) and with intel's 980X release came the 1090T and the 1055T. Now AMD has been thinking about their own version of HT which I don't have a link to, but that sounds interesting... However, this generation coming up seems to be AMD's time to shine.
yes i agree even in price for performance basis AMD still the best choice so why i'll lacerate my pocket just to buy an expensive one "INTEL
eww". i dont care about the benchmarks when it comes to performance but im basing it on what i've experienced AMD is more efficient and stable.I have no idea how you guys think AMD dominates the mid-low end market. Everything AMD has Intel has a similar price equivalant thats stronger. Intel's also overclock higher everytime, but typically clock for clock intel is faster anyway on all it's equivalents.
Case in point-
Athlon II 250 VS E5300
Phenom II 555 VS I3 530
Phenom II 965 VS I5 750
Phenom II 1090T VS I7 930
In every case here, the intel can overclock higher, is WAY faster in single threaded apps, and will win clock for clock in 99% of multithreaded apps.
The only thing AMD has on intel is the Athlon II quads, which aren't that great for gaming because of the lack of L3 cache. And honestly, I'd rather have an I3 than an Athlon II quad anyday.
Case in point-
Athlon II 250 VS E5300
Phenom II 555 VS I3 530
Phenom II 965 VS I5 750
Phenom II 1090T VS I7 930
In every case here, the intel can overclock higher, is WAY faster in single threaded apps, and will win clock for clock in 99% of multithreaded apps.
The only thing AMD has on intel is the Athlon II quads, which aren't that great for gaming because of the lack of L3 cache. And honestly, I'd rather have an I3 than an Athlon II quad anyday.
Ethan3.14159
Active Member
AMD actually does dominate the low-mid range market. Cheaper motherboards and cheaper CPU's. Low to mid-range AMD motherboards have far better features than the equivalent Intel boards. Better integrated video, more connectivity via firewire, usb, etc. Who gives a shit about gaming or overclocking? Not many people still game on PC's, and even fewer overclock. Intel dominates the higher end market, but that's not where the money is made. Intel still makes loads of money from strong-arming OEM's like HP and Dell into buying their CPU's, and their domination of the mobile market.
I don't see intel offering quad cores for ~$100 US or 6 cores for $200.
Last edited:
FuryRosewood
Active Member
Couldn't agree more, right now its just hearsay at this point.
And at this point both AMD and Intel have Spots in the low to mid sector, doesnt mean they have to have the same number of cores, just means they have products of similar performance in the same price range. Yes some intel boards are more expensive, but there are also those that are not, same can be said for some amd based boards. Right now with competition how it is, its basically coming down to what side of the fence you want to be on really.
Last edited:
bomberboysk
Active Member
Lets See here.
Athlon II 250 VS E5300 -> Yes, intel wins this one in speed. However then you factor in that 775 is EOL, 775 motherboards cost more feature for feature, and AMD starts to become the better value. Plus i've seen some great overclocks from both of the chips, in this case i wouldnt really consider the E5300 to be a better overclocker. Check CPU-Z for both chips on hwbot, the athlon II 250 has higher CPU-Z validations.
Phenom II 555 VS I3 530 -> In that scenario, sure intel wins. How about perhaps the Athlon II X4 630 though, which will beat out the I3 530 in any multithreaded app.
Phenom II 965 VS I5 750 -> Not really processors that i would consider low to mid end, starting to get a bit higher end so intel obviously is gonna win there. As far as overclocking though, on HWBOT the top Phenom II nets nearly 1.5Ghz higher clocks than the i5 750.
Phenom II 1090T vs I7 930 -> Not to mention the fact that the 1055T overclocks just as well, yet is $100 less than the 1090T, i'd say AMD wins price/performance. Not to mention that in any heavily multithreaded app the 1090T outperforms the 930. Also the fact that AM3 boards are far cheaper than 1366 boards. This is one case where AMD shines at the higher end. And again with overclocking, take a look at CPU-Z validations on HWBOT, higher clocks than the intel 920 or 930.
Which, reiterates the point that AMD is better in the value sector. Especially considering the fact someone can go out and buy an AM3 Sempron and a cheap motherboard, and when they get the cash drop in a 1055T hex core. With intel you have no such option in the value sector because of how they like to have multiple sockets. And yes, i know the HWBOT CPU-Z validations i used as source in overclocking were under dice/LN2/lhe, however you simply stated overclocking, which would include extreme overclocking. On air i have seen both chips net similar results to each other, although intel does take the edge on air. Soon as you get into sub ambient though, AMD processors really start to shine.
Last edited:
I'm glad you mentioned the fact that HWBOT high scores are LN2 mostly. You are talking low to mid end cpu's here, LN2 never entered my thoughts. On air, intel absolutely dominates. Now that AMD have C3's, that has helped a TON. Most amd's struggle to hit 4ghz on air, almost any new intel chip easily hits 4ghz. And remember, most intel chips start out at lower clocks than the AMD in the first place.
Yes like I said the Athlon II quads are AMD's strong point in the intel VS amd battle. However, like I said intel way overclocks better. My I3 would hit 4.6ghz at 1.3625 Vcore, I'd like to run that against a 3.8ghz 630 and see the results. I bet the margin of difference would be very little in 4 threaded benches.
The 1055t does not overclock as well as the 1090t on air cooling. The 1055t struggles to hit 3.8-4ghz, most 1090t's can easily do 4.2ghz.
You talk about multithreaded apps, when 95% of apps are single threaded which intel dominates at.
And I don't really understand your thoughts on motherboard pricing. Any sub- $80 is crap whether it be intel or AMD. 1366 boards are expensive yes, but then again the cheapest 1366 board has as much or more features than the most 790FX AM3 boards.
Also, the ICH10R is STILL superior to the SB850, and the ICH10R has been out for years kicking the crap out of the SB750.
Yes like I said the Athlon II quads are AMD's strong point in the intel VS amd battle. However, like I said intel way overclocks better. My I3 would hit 4.6ghz at 1.3625 Vcore, I'd like to run that against a 3.8ghz 630 and see the results. I bet the margin of difference would be very little in 4 threaded benches.
The 1055t does not overclock as well as the 1090t on air cooling. The 1055t struggles to hit 3.8-4ghz, most 1090t's can easily do 4.2ghz.
You talk about multithreaded apps, when 95% of apps are single threaded which intel dominates at.
And I don't really understand your thoughts on motherboard pricing. Any sub- $80 is crap whether it be intel or AMD. 1366 boards are expensive yes, but then again the cheapest 1366 board has as much or more features than the most 790FX AM3 boards.
Also, the ICH10R is STILL superior to the SB850, and the ICH10R has been out for years kicking the crap out of the SB750.
Last edited:
bomberboysk
Active Member
All valid points, but the one thing about motherboard pricing i do have a few things to say. I have seen some quite good motherboards for sub $100 that feature for feature beat out most 1156 boards for the price. Also, as far as multithreaded apps, more and more apps are becoming multithreaded so it does add a bit of "futureproofing".
spynoodle
Active Member
I know this isn't what you're saying, but I actually have been wondering if Intel makes a larger barrier between what clock speed its chips can handle and what they clock them at compared to AMD. For example, I could EASILY run my Pentium 4 520 with 2.8 GHz stock at 3.2GHz without a voltage bump. Is this just some stupid thought or is it an actual possibility?