• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

screw intel

zoomee said:
moving on then :>

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=4700771#post4700771

Some users showing problems getting uber clocks when using prime - and a handy tip about which version of linx to use for the SB's ;)

someone show me a 24hr prime 95 run @5Ghz then i'll believe teh hype :>
Click to expand...

problem is, if Intel keep the whole expensive K products going (the only overclockable Sandy Bridge) and AMDs Bulldozer turns out to be as powerful as 'speculated' I could see a large number of forum users switching from Sandy Bridge to Bulldozer, AMD could win the hearts and minds of the people in their epic David vs. Goliath battle with the evil Intel Corporation! :D
 
Iv already slated a wedge of cash for if bulldozer is any good, for me personally overclocking sandy bridge would be over in an hour due to it not likeing the cold etc and being too predictable and easy lol. I relish the challenge if that sounds normal haha. I'm hoping and can at least make a chip that's a joy to wrestle with using phase and water-cooling kits iv got knocking around :)
 
I for one am glad that unlocked multipliers don't cost at least a 3x price premium now :)

That was the reason my last chip was AMD...

But I realised having a much more powerful chip is even more fun when you can properly overclock the nuts off it :D

In my view, there is no way FSB overclocking should have been locked out. Saw a rumour somewhere, so probably not true at all, that the z67 chipset allowed some form of it? Anyone care to clarify? :)
 
Don't know if it's already been mentioned but £250 is vastly not equivalent to £250 back then. People earn a lot more now and money is worth less.

Further more, computing is a much bigger market now and there is no reason for intel to sell for less. Overclocking is also a tiny market and not even worth intel particularly thinking about.
 
Wow i really dont understand the people here who dont care about overclocking, i thought this was a hardware forum? If you dont want to overclock or dont intend to try it fine but more options are always better, intel limiting overclocking to only the K chips and charging more is a bad move for anyone who is even remotely interested in hardware.

Hopefully bulldozer is decent and dosent have any overclock killing features.
 
MaxP779 said:
Wow i really dont understand the people here who dont care about overclocking, i thought this was a hardware forum?
Click to expand...

Overclocking isn't always the best approach available. There's a lot to be said for undervolting as far as noise is concerned, and I can certainly see a case for running slightly overclocked while dramatically undervolted. Otherwise the stability penalty inherent in overclocking may be unacceptable, so there's a good case for running a supermicro / tyan board at stock speeds if stability is critical.

I agree though, it is good to have options.
 
hedgey said:
remember when oc'ing started with the celeron 266a? it was the cheapest cpu. basically kick started this whole cottage industry. did a 90% oc.
now with sandybridge, its the reverse. the oc'able cpu's are the most expensive. i dont know how we ended up in this situation, but this really is the end of overclocking. for one i am not dropping £275 on a cpu just so i can oc it. if amd goes this route, with locked buses..well its all over. what created the "pc enthusiast" segment is the ability to get a low end cpu and oc it past high end. intel just dont understand they are killing this segment.
Click to expand...

You can be a pc enthusiast without OC'ing..
 
Last edited:
I don't understand this argument at all.

The celeron 266a is a +13 year old CPU and is no where as sophisticated as today's generation of processors.

£180 (2500K) is hardly a premium price to pay for a CPU when comparing other recent Intel CPUs, in terms of price vs performance.

Intel have rarely been about bang for buck.

But

Sandy Bridge offers a near guaranteed overclock of at least 1Ghz even with the stock cooler - There aren't too many CPU's that can compete with that when you factor in the overall performance of Sandy Bridge.
 
Redmint said:
Lets all cry because the big nasty Intel won't let us have an awesome overclocking chip for £50 any more. :p You make it sound like they're depriving you of a basic right to be able to overclock any chip, it's their product, they can make it any way they want to.
Click to expand...

Are you a sociopath? What's with the contempt? Nobodies asking intel, forcing intel. Christ :mad:
 
iamtheoneneo said:
yes intels really gonna miss the 10p profit they earn from this segment.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This segment helps drive the market along as it makes PC gaming possible for people who don't have money to burn. If a critical mass of people can't play PC exclusives or even the Xbox ports then the PC as a gaming machine sinks and consoles like the Xbox are already putting the nails in that coffin.

Without the PC gaming market Intel's consumer business will have to think about how to justify new roll outs every 2yrs to run MS office. While Intel has lost the console market for the forcible future and fights a loosing battle in the low power market as Microsoft recently said it will support RISC in future windows and AMD drops it's own 'Atom'.

edit:
Remembering that most sales are oems too. The cheap overclocked chips were always 'freebees' for junkies who Intel take similar profit from over time due to the higher frequency of their upgrades.

MS does a similar thing, makes windows relatively easy to pirate if you know what you are doing but not too hard to make sure a critical mass of people don't bother with Linux.
 
Last edited:
hedgey said:
remember when oc'ing started with the celeron 266a? it was the cheapest cpu. basically kick started this whole cottage industry. did a 90% oc.
Click to expand...
Started? My P60 was clocked at 66 and my P150 at 187.5MHz. The latter on a 75MHz bus which gave nice improvements to memory and video as well.
hedgey said:
now with sandybridge, its the reverse. the oc'able cpu's are the most expensive. i dont know how we ended up in this situation, but this really is the end of overclocking. for one i am not dropping £275 on a cpu just so i can oc it. if amd goes this route, with locked buses..well its all over. what created the "pc enthusiast" segment is the ability to get a low end cpu and oc it past high end. intel just dont understand they are killing this segment.
Click to expand...
"This segment" is trivial from Intel's point of view. I've always bought cheap and overclocked, my Celeron 300A was clocked to 464MHz, my 1GHz TBird to 1.4GHz and my Current 1.8GHz E4300 to 3.2GHz. However, I see a lot of "pc enthusiasts" on this forum buying high end chips and overclocking. In any case, the i5-2500k is the overclockers chip of choice, £195, not £275. and if those 3.3GHz reliably get close to 5GHz, the cottage industry is alive and well!
 
If the overcloking segment is so small, how come intel are charging a premium for overclocking chips and making money off of us? Surely it wouldnt matter to them if a few people decide to clock their cheaper chips...

I call shenanigans, i think there's a higher percentage in this category than people realse. I mean otherwise why would they make black edition/extreme chips in the first place? Surely there would have been no money to be made?

The % profit off of higher end parts is also much greater than low end/mid range, and most of us here buy into the high end gear when upgrading.

Intel have alienated a key segment here, and i pray AMD dont follow suit. Overclocking is an intrinsic part of good value for money, its why it pays off to have that extra knowldege about your build and why it pays off to build your own rig in the first place.
 
I want one but the pricing is confusing me. The 2500k was £190 on last weeks this week only yet this week its £199 yet says that's a saving on its previous price of 209? Was it £209 for a bit at the weekend or something? Really hard to judge when to make the jump!
 
Last edited:
hedgey said:
remember when oc'ing started with the celeron 266a? it was the cheapest cpu. basically kick started this whole cottage industry. did a 90% oc.
now with sandybridge, its the reverse. the oc'able cpu's are the most expensive. i dont know how we ended up in this situation, but this really is the end of overclocking. for one i am not dropping £275 on a cpu just so i can oc it. if amd goes this route, with locked buses..well its all over. what created the "pc enthusiast" segment is the ability to get a low end cpu and oc it past high end. intel just dont understand they are killing this segment.
Click to expand...

Just to correc tu

I overclocked my DX33 by soldering a 40mhz crystal to the motherboard :)
 
zoomee said:
I miss the gud ol days where a new CPU meant loads more performance. Nowadays it seems people are so easily duped into thinking they're going to get loads more by updating they're whole systems (i.e. m/board/cpu/ram etc) - looks like intel's marketing hype is working I guess..............
Click to expand...

For me that has not happened for a long time. Maybe I need to leave it longer before I bother to upgrade..?
I would see a change from my 4Ghz E8500 to a 2500k as being just an incremental difference for what I need a PC for and what I will gain for a lot of money. Even with the Z68 boards out soon ther isn't going to be enough of a difference to entice me.
IIRC I read on Anandtech a comment about the Sandy Bridge platform as being yesterdays technology being made more affordable, over that of the i9xx platform.
 
Not really interested in 'Screw Intel' only really interested in the architecture and why it seems unable to change the megahertz rate (i.e. over 103Mhz goes wrong). What has change at this level that has allowed Intel to very easily lock out overclocking via the FSB?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom