Read more.Quote:
Higher-end, quad-core, multiplier-unlocked CPU for £170? We’ll take two!
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Higher-end, quad-core, multiplier-unlocked CPU for £170? We’ll take two!
A better/alternate comparison is to the £145 Core i5 760, 2.8GHz, so the new CPU would have a 17% clock speed advantage and 20% higher perf per clock, for a 17% price increase... so not that amazing, a good incremental increase.Quote:
All of this means that we have a speedy quad-core CPU with an unlocked multiplier and a lot of headroom that could potentially ship for around £170. For comparison, Intel's current-gen Core i5 655K is shipping now for around the same price. Though it's clocked at a similar speed, has an unlocked multiplier and supports Hyper-Threading, it only has two physical cores. We already know that, clock-for-clock, Sandy Bridge will outperform Clarkdale chips by around 20 per cent, meaning that the new chip should bring an awful lot more performance for the same price.
Dual core chips have looked poor value for a while against that the cheaper quads, they were better for games and non-multitaskers with the clock speed advantage, but even that is limited/gone.
You're not wrong, but I was going for a similarly priced multiplier unlocked CPU. That's also the cheapest K-series CPU I could find, so offers quite a big boost for the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle
Comparisons or not, it should be a pretty speedy piece of silicon.
I wonder how many will be bought in error with punters mistaking 1156 for their socket 1155.
The problem with compating it to the i5 760 is that chip doesn't have integrated graphics - so for the mainstream user (i.e. people without dedicated graphics cards) this chip has a whole load of extra value.
Plus, the fact that intel have produced a chip with higher performance per clock, a higher clock speed AND an integrated GPU in the same power envelope as the 760 is pretty impressive to me!
True, comparing K to K it looks good. The 875K though is the closest in capabilities, at £260... so I suppose for £90 less you are getting 400 extra MHz with each being 20% better... which I make approximatively a 35% faster for, £90 less, all you miss out on is HT, but as CK says you gain the integrated graphics (how many who want a K class will use that though??). So actually looks better like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BullDogg
Things really haven't moved on much in the last 4 years. At the end of 2006, the Core2 Quad was released. July 2007 the Core2 Q6600 was a little over £150 after a massive price cut.
Now, more than 3 years later, a more expensive processor is less than twice as fast. By the time it's released, it'll probably be 3.5 or more years after the July 2007 £150 Core2 Q6600's were first sold. Shows what happens when AMD get caught out sitting on their Laurels and the result is no competition at the upper midrange and above.
I'll be waiting till ivy bridge at least before I upgrade.
You could have had Sandy Bridge's graphics performance 2 1/2 years ago with an AMD GX mobo. And you also wouldn't have noticed any difference otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by CK_1985
SB is a huge "meh", but I have no doubt intel will market it like the best thing ever and still make $billions.
Yep, keeping the Core i branding isn't going to help either..Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldarkside
Intel's platform(s) lineup has been a complete disaster of late. I don't know WTH they're thinking. Maybe they think they're being competitive by being multi-platform. :\