Link
I think they have the clock speed wrong, most likely will be 2.8GHz, also likely to just be 45nm.
Printable View
Link
I think they have the clock speed wrong, most likely will be 2.8GHz, also likely to just be 45nm.
Maybe someone can explain the logic of this one to me?
We have a 920 which OC's way above the standard speed of this proposed chip. Unless it blows everything out of the water I don't see why anybody in their right mind would want to upgrade to one of these?
Maybe it's trying to come in at the lower power consumption of the 750 and 860? I really don't know. It's not like your typical i7 user is a Greenpeace activist though.
It's not higher power consumtion that's the big problem, it's thermal output.
More efficient chips means more performance for every unit of heat output - cooler running CPU's.
Same thing, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by AD-15
Ok - it's a replacement for the 920.
I'm just not sure why they'd bother, unless there's some new feature ?
If it runs cooler, then perhaps intel will bump the turbo mode up to match the 860? After all, for those that don't overclock, the 860's turbo mode gives it a significant advantage over the 920 (assuming that you're not running triple Xfire/SLi, needing the extra memory bandwidth etc etc)
Would seem to make sense to me...
That would a nice buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Random_guy
Because why bother getting a 920 when a lynnfield system is faster for the same price?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Bang for buck on an OC 920 is not so clear cut as that.
Homebrew OC is 0.001% of the market, therefore insignificant when it comes to SKU lineup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Fo'sure.
Are you saying that the 930 has an improved turbo mode to make it more attractive ? Isn't that the new feature I originally asked about ?
Nope - I'm saying that 2.88ghz is what makes it more attractive. As it is, the 920 is too soundly beaten by cheaper lynnfield systems for it to have a viable place in the market (at the margins Intel are maintaining due to lack of external competition). If their process has improved to the extent that the minimum stable speed they can get out of viable bloomfield chips is now 2.88ghz then there's no point in downclocking them to 920 levels where they won't sell in great numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Hmmmm. Still not very attractive. How much of a performance gain is .22 ? It would make sense if they discontinue the 920.
Who would win between an 860 and a 930 ? (there's only one way to find out)
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
You can extrapolate that already. For fewer threaded, low-medium memory+GPU bandwidth tasks the 860. For highly threaded, high memory+GPU bandwidth tasks the 930.Quote:
Who would win between an 860 and a 930 ? (there's only one way to find out)
An evolutionary change then. Fair enough.
Fiiiight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage