tkrow21 Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 I don't think Intel is specifically trying to force us to buy higher clocked processors, just that it isn't much of a concern of theirs. That's why we've seen average overclocks on 65nm processors, huge overclocks on our 45nm processors, yet now we're back to average. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Error 404 Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 Lucky ccokeman got the i7's! I honestly think it would be great to have one and all, but they are completely overhyped. I remember reading something about a 14k CPU score in 06 somewhere, yet I've seen nothing coming close to that...The only thing i7 will do for me is drop the prices of the other C2D/C2Q so i can buy one... ~Error Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
troy5061 Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 (edited) I think Intel is trying to force us though. The reason behind the locked multiplier from way back was to prevent overclocking a cheap chip to equal or greater speeds of a very expensive one. There was a way around this through the Fsb so now they are locking the voltage on the chip to 130w, exceed that and the chip throttles back to a slower speed. If you get a chip that only needs say 70w or 80w stock you will have some headroom but for those that get the 110w chip theres only 20w to play with. I think Intel is trying to get the extreme series some traction. Right now there is pretty much no reason to buy one except for an expensive toy with an unlocked multiplyer when a chip at a fraction of the cost can reach the same clock speeds. It seems anyone real serious about overclocking will have to pony up and buy the extreme. Edited November 3, 2008 by troy5061 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compxpert Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 Do you really believe this? I'm not happy about the possibility of limits like this, but let's be realistic. Overclockers are an extraordinarily small slice of Intel's market (or AMD's, by comparison). On a board like this it may seem that tons of people OC, but compared to all the chips that sit in pre-built machines at stock speed for their entire lives, OC'd chips are an incredibly small percentage. When you figure in the number of fanboys who either A) won't know the difference or B) will buy Intel no matter what, I bet this would have a relatively small negative impact on their bottom line if they did it. Sad but true. Don't you think though that the cpus generally sell due to the hype that ocers and enthusiasts give them? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_Nate Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 Don't you think though that the cpus generally sell due to the hype that ocers and enthusiasts give them? Nope. We are such a minority...we barely dent the market in consumption. Most people don't know what overclocking is...they just push the button on their "CPU" (tower for us knowledgeable folk), log in and use their word processing, internet, and media programs. If it's broken, somebody else fixes it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zertz Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 Don't you think though that the cpus generally sell due to the hype that ocers and enthusiasts give them? Not at all Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardnrg Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 I don't think Intel is specifically trying to force us to buy higher clocked processors, just that it isn't much of a concern of theirs. That's why we've seen average overclocks on 65nm processors, huge overclocks on our 45nm processors, yet now we're back to average. Seemed to me as if ~155 MHz on the Intel board was the limiting factor... I don't think OCs will be average with real boards... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccokeman Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 Not from what I have seen. Icould not pass 155 on either chip with the DX58SO board. The aftermarket should be better since Intel has to protect their assets to reduce returns. I dont think there is that stipulation with the aftermarket. So all the bets are off. Keep checking back since we have a few X58 boards to review. I'll know soon enough Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulktreg Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 Nice review Frank. I'm sure some of you guys are dying to get your hands on this one but it doesn't do anything for me! I'm a boring fart really and I'm quite happy with my new E8500. I might even try some overclocking when I've time and I have too say water cooling is grabbing my interest. Cheers Paul Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhenKittensATK Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 Why are you hardcoding subtitles to HD movies? Use an overlay!!! Transcoding like that hurts picture quality and hardcoded subs are just aweful. PS3 can't read subtitle files, so all foreign movies need to be hardcoded for subs. Actual files, not talking about blu-rays. If there is a quality lost in re-encoding subs it isn't a noticable one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 i'll stick with me Q9450 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccokeman Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 Its al a matter of what you do with your build really. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts