| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 112257 | 2010-08-29 23:32:00 | Intel furure proofing....LOL | SolMiester (139) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1132956 | 2010-08-29 23:32:00 | Yet another socket for Sandy Bridge...so much for 1366 lasting more than 1 architecture!!, Im sure Intel must have a number of deals with board manufacturers! www.anandtech.com |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1132957 | 2010-08-29 23:33:00 | Ha, knew saving $$ and going with 1156 was the right idea. :D | wratterus (105) | ||
| 1132958 | 2010-08-29 23:41:00 | Just realised why USB3 speeds are sh*t on Intel boards.... The other major (and welcome) change is the move to PCIe 2.0 lanes running at 5GT/s. Currently, Intel chipsets support PCIe 2.0 but they only run at 2.5GT/s, which limits them to a maximum of 250MB/s per direction per lane. This is a problem with high bandwidth USB 3.0 and 6Gbps SATA interfaces connected over PCIe x1 slots. With the move to 5GT/s, Intel is at feature parity with AMD’s chipsets and more importantly the bandwidth limits are a lot higher. A single PCIe x1 slot on a P67 motherboard can support up to 500MB/s of bandwidth in each direction (1GB/s bidirectional bandwidth). |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1132959 | 2010-08-29 23:46:00 | Interesting... Just noticed your avatar - Cygnus x1. Very cool. Still my favourite case mod of all time. :p |
wratterus (105) | ||
| 1132960 | 2010-08-29 23:54:00 | Interesting... Just noticed your avatar - Cygnus x1. Very cool. Still my favourite case mod of all time. :p Oh totally the best custom box I have ever ever seen......the work the guy put in was fantastic, not to mention the work-log! |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1132961 | 2010-08-30 00:40:00 | Performance wise wouldn't i7 9xx still be the king? Cause that's all that's important for me. | qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 1132962 | 2010-08-30 00:47:00 | Performance wise wouldn't i7 9xx still be the king? Cause that's all that's important for me. Probably not, what have you got Nehalem or Gulftown?...SB is 32nm process, and looks to have a higher turbo of 3.8ghz, not sure what they are at present, 3.46ghz aren't they...at any rate, we have different L3 cache and apparently faster clock for clock due to architecture changes.. In fact, archiving performance of 4 cores looks to be level with current 6 core!!! www.anandtech.com |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1132963 | 2010-08-30 00:53:00 | Can any cpu with a socket number go into any mobo with the same socket number? | jareemon (5207) | ||
| 1132964 | 2010-08-30 01:00:00 | Can any cpu with a socket number go into any mobo with the same socket number? Not with 478 or 775 sockets....not sure on AM2 and AM3, but i think with current sockets yes! |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1132965 | 2010-08-30 01:24:00 | Probably not, what have you got Nehalem or Gulftown?...SB is 32nm process, and looks to have a higher turbo of 3.8ghz, not sure what they are at present, 3.46ghz aren't they...at any rate, we have different L3 cache and apparently faster clock for clock due to architecture changes.. In fact, archiving performance of 4 cores looks to be level with current 6 core!!! www.anandtech.com I have Nehalem, i7 920 to be exact. I can crank it up to 4GHz easy, probably 4.5 if I needed it with my (soon to be completed) watercooling setup. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||