Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Reviews & Articles from the Web (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/reviews-articles-web/)
-   -   Sandy Bridge-E limited BCLK? (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/reviews-articles-web/45303-sandy-bridge-e-limited-bclk.html)

dma0991 August 1, 2011 11:24 AM

Sandy Bridge-E limited BCLK?
 
Exclusive: Intel's future base clock options unveiled

Quote:

We were disappointed to learn that Intel will only offer a single base clock option for Ivy Bridge beyond the 100MHz of Sandy Bridge, name 133MHz. For those of you that hoped to be able to overclock Ivy Bridge to your heart's content, well, it ain't gonna happen. Apparently Intel is worried that Ivy Bridge will compete with its LGA-2011 platform if it was to add more base clock options and as such things aren't set to improve much over Sandy Bridge.

As for Sandy Bridge-E, well it shares one component with the upcoming Ivy Bridge platform and you can see it quite clearly in the diagram above which is from a YouTube video that we've embedded at the bottom. The little chip marked CK505 at the bottom is the clock generator and this is what controls the base clock. As you can see there's a mention of a PEG/DMI ratio mechanism and this is what allows several different base clocks.

Unlike Ivy Bridge, Intel has enabled several options for Sandy Bridge-E and we're hearing that we can expect base clock frequencies of 100, 125, 166, 200 and 250MHz if memory serves. This might still change before the launch of the Waimea Bay platform as Intel tweak things to work as well as possible for overclockers. Still, with four rather large jumps between each of the base clocks we have a feeling that the overclocking community isn't going to be impressed. We might see the X58 platform live on for quite some time next year, despite the fact that many are feeling like it's a platform of the past already.


SKYMTL August 1, 2011 01:02 PM

This is a non-issue IMO.

As long as there are unlocked multi K-series chips (and there will be), users will still be able to push Ivy Bridge chips above the limits of most high-end cooling solutions without any problem.

JJThomp August 1, 2011 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL (Post 537338)
This is a non-issue IMO.

As long as there are unlocked multi K-series chips (and there will be), users will still be able to push Ivy Bridge chips above the limits of most high-end cooling solutions without any problem.

Yeah for most people it really is a non issue because if they are overclocking they will just mess with the multi. But some people buy these systems just to play with and for them this is bad news.

For me and most people this is a non-issue but some people will be deterred.

Sagath August 1, 2011 05:52 PM

I'm not sure why this matters either. Current BCLK's are limited to about 5-10mhz at most anyways. Clock generated overclocking seems to be a dying beast now with unlocked multis...

MrHydes August 6, 2011 03:31 AM

I belive this happens mostly because AMD it's not delivering some decent competiton over SNB

So why even bother with Ivy Hardcore performance when almost All Core2Q 9***, and Corei5 7**, 8**, 9** outperforms almost all AMD based corelogic. Sandy Bridge should be at the moment what Core2 Duo
Wolfdale was back in 2007/08.

Amd Bulldozer will be a flop becasue of it's Slow IPC

Boggins August 7, 2011 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrHydes (Post 538794)
I belive this happens mostly because AMD it's not delivering some decent competiton over SNB

So why even bother with Ivy Hardcore performance when almost All Core2Q 9***, and Corei5 7**, 8**, 9** outperforms almost all AMD based corelogic. Sandy Bridge should be at the moment what Core2 Duo
Wolfdale was back in 2007/08.

Amd Bulldozer will be a flop becasue of it's Slow IPC

If either the manufacturing or market isn't yet ready for the new CPUs, why should Intel quicken the pace of putting the new chips to market? That costs money. It's best to ride out the circumstances as long as possible.

Intel simply has the time and technology in reserve if it needs it. They're not going to push until they need to.

iYoYo August 27, 2011 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boggins (Post 539074)
If either the manufacturing or market isn't yet ready for the new CPUs, why should Intel quicken the pace of putting the new chips to market? That costs money. It's best to ride out the circumstances as long as possible.

Intel simply has the time and technology in reserve if it needs it. They're not going to push until they need to.

This is the sole reason of why I want Bulldozer to be a success


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:23 AM.