Hi guys,
Just a thought came across my mind last night, the Broadwell-E will be pretty dull when it comes to overclocking.
A couple of recent events led me to that thought:
1. Broadwell architecture on socket 1150 was pretty bad in term of overclocking.
2. After several generations of 4 core CPU (Intel Core, Penryn and Nehalem) Intel added 2 more cores to the Westmere gen (i7 970, 980, 990...). And then after 2 generations (Sandy-E and Ivy-E), Intel added another 2 cores to its enthusiastic line up, the 5960X (haswell-E). But now they just announce that Broadwell-E will have 2 more cores on top of that. I think this is pretty generous? Why the generous? Is it because of the performance leap between the 2 generations is not large enough to convince people to buy it? Is it because if they keep the same number of cores Haswell-E users will just overclock their current chips and surpass the new chips? etc.
3. When Intel introduced the xeon E5 2600 V3 line up, they also announced the E5 1600 V3 cpus. But now with the introduction of E5 2600 V4 line up, they did not say anything about the E5 1600 V4 cpus. What is the connection of this observation and my main point? OK, some of you might already know that E5 1600 series is overclockable and its specs is pretty damn similar the consumer line cpus. For example, Xeon E5 1650 is essentially the 3930K with more RAM and ECC support. E5 1650 v2 is pretty similar to the 4930K. Same thing can be observed with the E5 1660 V3 (i7 5960X), E5 1650 V3 (5930K). Some may say that the xeon is a higher binned cpu but I doubt that, I believe their overclocking potential is the same and depends rather on batches. The point is that the xeon 1600 has very much the same architecture as the equivalent consumer line cpus. This explained by the specs and performance differences between them. Therefore, their overclocking ability must very well be similar if not the same. At the most recent launch, Intel omitted the xeon 1600 v4. Is it because they want to completely hide the (bad) overclocking ability of the chips? Maybe.
Any thought?
PS: Sorry if this may sound nonsense but that just a thought and my personal opinion. I am not claiming or discredit anything. And of course, people make mistake, so do I. Feel free to correct me.
Just a thought came across my mind last night, the Broadwell-E will be pretty dull when it comes to overclocking.
A couple of recent events led me to that thought:
1. Broadwell architecture on socket 1150 was pretty bad in term of overclocking.
2. After several generations of 4 core CPU (Intel Core, Penryn and Nehalem) Intel added 2 more cores to the Westmere gen (i7 970, 980, 990...). And then after 2 generations (Sandy-E and Ivy-E), Intel added another 2 cores to its enthusiastic line up, the 5960X (haswell-E). But now they just announce that Broadwell-E will have 2 more cores on top of that. I think this is pretty generous? Why the generous? Is it because of the performance leap between the 2 generations is not large enough to convince people to buy it? Is it because if they keep the same number of cores Haswell-E users will just overclock their current chips and surpass the new chips? etc.
3. When Intel introduced the xeon E5 2600 V3 line up, they also announced the E5 1600 V3 cpus. But now with the introduction of E5 2600 V4 line up, they did not say anything about the E5 1600 V4 cpus. What is the connection of this observation and my main point? OK, some of you might already know that E5 1600 series is overclockable and its specs is pretty damn similar the consumer line cpus. For example, Xeon E5 1650 is essentially the 3930K with more RAM and ECC support. E5 1650 v2 is pretty similar to the 4930K. Same thing can be observed with the E5 1660 V3 (i7 5960X), E5 1650 V3 (5930K). Some may say that the xeon is a higher binned cpu but I doubt that, I believe their overclocking potential is the same and depends rather on batches. The point is that the xeon 1600 has very much the same architecture as the equivalent consumer line cpus. This explained by the specs and performance differences between them. Therefore, their overclocking ability must very well be similar if not the same. At the most recent launch, Intel omitted the xeon 1600 v4. Is it because they want to completely hide the (bad) overclocking ability of the chips? Maybe.
Any thought?
PS: Sorry if this may sound nonsense but that just a thought and my personal opinion. I am not claiming or discredit anything. And of course, people make mistake, so do I. Feel free to correct me.
