New Sandy Bridge Computer Help (Built - WOW!) - Page 5

lavalamp · 2011-01-19, 13:48

It looks like the notches in the side of the CPU are in a different place so they will not physically fit into the socket.

Presumably this is because if they did slot into place, they wouldn't work and could damage the chip or the motherboard.

Here is a source for the pinout of the CPUs, however it is from April 2010, so a newer source may be preferable in case things have changed:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...the-next-gen/1

fivemack · 2011-01-19, 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by lavalamp

Because it has basically killed the good old past time of buying a cheap CPU and overclocking the hell out of it.

Now you have to buy a more expensive CPU that already has a high clock, meaning you only squeeze a few more MHz out of it before it reaches the limit.

That doesn't seem to be the case; yes, you have to buy a $300 CPU which is sold at 3.3GHz, but most review sites report that they can get to around 4.0GHz with the standard Intel cooler and 5.0GHz with standard ridiculous overclockers' coolers. Is that not enough?

lycorn · 2011-01-19, 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET_

Can the i5-2500K chip be installed into a LGA1156 socket (now hosting an i5-750)?

Luigi

No. Sandy Bridge will require the new 1155 socket.
Good old Intel... You need large profit margins to be big.
At least they are using them to develop great products

James Heinrich · 2011-01-19, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET_

Can the i5-2500K chip be installed into a LGA1156 socket (now hosting an i5-750)?

No. Despite the similar pin count, the new LGA1155 and older LGA1156 chips/boards are not interchangeable (for assorted power and frequency design related issues). However, CPU coolers are cross-compatible between the two sockets.

lavalamp · 2011-01-19, 14:44

No, those are pretty good overclocks and proportionally match the extra capacity of the i7 920 (ie: 50% over stock), assuming they are truly stable (a lot of people consider just 1 hour of Prime95 stable).

However, with hyperthreading enabled (as in the 2600K which inexplicably costs $105 more than the 2500K) you lose a couple of hundred MHz on the max OC. Additionally, when they increase the stock frequency and double the number of cores for the high end, the extra performance overclockers can eek out will be reduced still further.

If Intel still sell high-end CPUs at low prices this time next year, and they are capable of routinely hitting 50% overclocks from the stock frequency (with HT), I'll be happy, and I may even buy one.

fivemack · 2011-01-19, 15:46

I don't think the extra pricing for the i7-2/600 is inexplicable: for embarrassingly parallel jobs like NFS sieving, the hyperthreading is very useful, so certainly I'll get an i7-2/600 if I get a Sandy Bridge at all.

lavalamp · 2011-01-19, 19:04

Indeed, hyperthreading is useful, I use it myself. You can get 25% extra clock-for-clock performance out of the chip with it for certain applications. But the cost of the CPU is nearly 50% greater.

You may say that if you have a $600 system, then switching to the 2600K increases the total cost by only 17.5%, and then the extra cost is worth it for the performance gain. I agree with that, however I maintain that 0.1 GHz and hyperthreading is only a small improvment, so a fairer bump would be closer to $50.

Of course the price difference isn't really inexplicable, that was just hyperbole. It's actually quite simple; Intel like money.

James Heinrich · 2011-01-19, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by lavalamp

Intel like money.

That applies for the Extreme Edition chips (always introduced with a fixed price of US$999), but not so much here. And it's nothing Intel-specific; NVIDIA does the same thing (the GTX580 is 150% the cost of the GTX570; is that an appropriate incremental price?

Flatlander · 2011-01-20, 16:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flatlander

Can I assume that any Prime95 speed increase due to new Sandy Bridge instructions will filter down to LLR.exe for k*b^n+-1?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue

Yes. PFGW too.

Great!

If I have pizzas delivered to George do you think he will code through the night?

ET_ · 2011-01-20, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flatlander

Great!

If I have pizzas delivered to George do you think he will code through the night?

I guess he actually won't need pizzas to code through the night...

Luigi

Christenson · 2011-01-20, 22:13

He may not NEED the pizzas, but the question is if he will code better if he gets some...grin...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
So Sandy Bridge Xeons are now launched	fivemack	Hardware	6	2012-03-14 11:27
Overclocking, Sandy Bridge-E : Don't	firejuggler	Hardware	6	2012-03-08 19:38
2 disabled cores in new Sandy Bridge-E :(	stars10250	Hardware	8	2011-11-16 13:55
Sandy Bridge CPU Usage only 50 percent	dmoran	Software	3	2011-06-14 21:21
Sandy Bridge benchmarks are out.	nucleon	Hardware	0	2011-01-04 11:41

2011-01-19, 13:48	#45
lavalamp Oct 2007 Manchester, UK 1357₁₀ Posts	It looks like the notches in the side of the CPU are in a different place so they will not physically fit into the socket. Presumably this is because if they did slot into place, they wouldn't work and could damage the chip or the motherboard. Here is a source for the pinout of the CPUs, however it is from April 2010, so a newer source may be preferable in case things have changed: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...the-next-gen/1

2011-01-19, 14:44	#49
lavalamp Oct 2007 Manchester, UK 23×59 Posts	No, those are pretty good overclocks and proportionally match the extra capacity of the i7 920 (ie: 50% over stock), assuming they are truly stable (a lot of people consider just 1 hour of Prime95 stable). However, with hyperthreading enabled (as in the 2600K which inexplicably costs $105 more than the 2500K) you lose a couple of hundred MHz on the max OC. Additionally, when they increase the stock frequency and double the number of cores for the high end, the extra performance overclockers can eek out will be reduced still further. If Intel still sell high-end CPUs at low prices this time next year, and they are capable of routinely hitting 50% overclocks from the stock frequency (with HT), I'll be happy, and I may even buy one.

2011-01-19, 15:46	#50
fivemack (loop (#_fork)) Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 14430₈ Posts	I don't think the extra pricing for the i7-2/600 is inexplicable: for embarrassingly parallel jobs like NFS sieving, the hyperthreading is very useful, so certainly I'll get an i7-2/600 if I get a Sandy Bridge at all.

2011-01-19, 19:04	#51
lavalamp Oct 2007 Manchester, UK 1357₁₀ Posts	Indeed, hyperthreading is useful, I use it myself. You can get 25% extra clock-for-clock performance out of the chip with it for certain applications. But the cost of the CPU is nearly 50% greater. You may say that if you have a $600 system, then switching to the 2600K increases the total cost by only 17.5%, and then the extra cost is worth it for the performance gain. I agree with that, however I maintain that 0.1 GHz and hyperthreading is only a small improvment, so a fairer bump would be closer to $50. Of course the price difference isn't really inexplicable, that was just hyperbole. It's actually quite simple; Intel like money.

2011-01-20, 22:13	#55
Christenson Dec 2010 Monticello 11100000011₂ Posts	He may not NEED the pizzas, but the question is if he will code better if he gets some...grin...