• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Why did Intel do this?

A

alg7_munif

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
5,862
If we look at S939 CPUs, people can overclock them to around 2.8GHz and the top of the line CPU is the FX-60 with the stock speed at 2.6GHz. I don't understand why Conroe X6800 stock speed is only 2.93GHz but many people can overclock the C2D CPUs to around 3.5GHz. Why the stock speed of the X6800 is not at around 3.3GHz and the stock speed of the E6300 is not at around 2.3GHz. Conroe CPUs are not only clock to clock faster than AMD's CPUs but they also can have a higher clock so why don't Intel sell the CPUs at a higher stock clock?
 
so they can sell more processors. they can release an entire new line of c2d's that are clocked higher and those will sell.
 
alg7_munif said:
If we look at S939 CPUs, people can overclock them to around 2.8GHz and the top of the line CPU is the FX-60 with the stock speed at 2.6GHz. I don't understand why Conroe X6800 stock speed is only 2.93GHz but many people can overclock the C2D CPUs to around 3.5GHz. Why the stock speed of the X6800 is not at around 3.3GHz and the stock speed of the E6300 is not at around 2.3GHz. Conroe CPUs are not only clock to clock faster than AMD's CPUs but they also can have a higher clock so why don't Intel sell the CPUs at a higher stock clock?
Click to expand...

wolfsdale. Quarter 3 2k7. Debuting at 3.5ghz to 4.0ghz. All it is is a more refined conroe.
 
intel just doesnt need to release faster processors because AMD is so far behind in speed.

also, by essentially selling underclocked processors, Intel can push its yields up even higher.
 
The answer is simple : why throw all your aces out on your 1st hand ?
Intel , like any other company , likes to have a back up solution.

Imagine that K8L performs 10% better than Conroe clock/clock and is launched at 3GHz for the DC version.Intel has to up Conroe speed to at least 3.3GHz to maintan parity.
Conroe XE was originaly planned to have a 95w TDP and was expected to run at 3.33GHz/1333 FSB.It is fairly obvious that the chip can easily run at that speeds.

Intel artificially capped it at 2.93GHz/1066FSB and a 75w TDP.Conroe mobos support a TDP of up to 130w.We can only guess how much GHz you can stuff in that envelope , my guess is 3.66GHz on a 65nm process.

It's all down to politics...;)
 
savantu said:
The answer is simple : why throw all your aces out on your 1st hand ?
Intel , like any other company , likes to have a back up solution.

Imagine that K8L performs 10% better than Conroe clock/clock and is launched at 3GHz for the DC version.Intel has to up Conroe speed to at least 3.3GHz to maintan parity.
Conroe XE was originaly planned to have a 95w TDP and was expected to run at 3.33GHz/1333 FSB.It is fairly obvious that the chip can easily run at that speeds.

Intel artificially capped it at 2.93GHz/1066FSB and a 75w TDP.Conroe mobos support a TDP of up to 130w.We can only guess how much GHz you can stuff in that envelope , my guess is 3.66GHz on a 65nm process.

It's all down to politics...;)
Click to expand...

QFT!
 
savantu said:
The answer is simple : why throw all your aces out on your 1st hand ?
Intel , like any other company , likes to have a back up solution.

Imagine that K8L performs 10% better than Conroe clock/clock and is launched at 3GHz for the DC version.Intel has to up Conroe speed to at least 3.3GHz to maintan parity.
Conroe XE was originaly planned to have a 95w TDP and was expected to run at 3.33GHz/1333 FSB.It is fairly obvious that the chip can easily run at that speeds.

Intel artificially capped it at 2.93GHz/1066FSB and a 75w TDP.Conroe mobos support a TDP of up to 130w.We can only guess how much GHz you can stuff in that envelope , my guess is 3.66GHz on a 65nm process.

It's all down to politics...;)
Click to expand...
But they are coming with new 45nm CPUs and also quad core, I don't think that they'll use their ace.
 
alg7_munif said:
But they are coming with new 45nm CPUs and also quad core, I don't think that they'll use their ace.
Click to expand...

As someone said they maximize their yeilds and they don't need any upper hand ( they rule now ) .Higher bins have lower yeilds which increases their cost.We don't have a shmoo plot for Core ( I'd love to see such a thing ;) ) but I'm pretty sure that 2.93 is well within the comfort zone.
 
The real reason is because Intel set low TDP targets and is delivering CPUs in those power budgets. Overclockers don't care about how much power they use as long as they have sufficient cooling.

Remember Intel's big NGMA push involved hyping performance/watt. The lower the power, the higher the ratio. ;)
 
Real reason is, if they release a 3.3Ghz CPU, they would have to increase the Ghz of every other C2D CPUs to keep the price balanced. And to do that, the yields will decrease and Intel won't make as much money. Besides, there is nothing AMD has that can touch the C2D.
 
Also helps reduce heat. If the clocks where higher, the stock cooler wouldn't be sufficient enough.
 
pxc said:
The real reason is because Intel set low TDP targets and is delivering CPUs in those power budgets. Overclockers don't care about how much power they use as long as they have sufficient cooling.

Remember Intel's big NGMA push involved hyping performance/watt. The lower the power, the higher the ratio. ;)
Click to expand...

Yep, right there is what is selling nowdays. Performance/watt. I think the C2D was a turd, it would still be selling well just because it uses such low amounts of power.
 
WarriorX said:
Also helps reduce heat. If the clocks where higher, the stock cooler wouldn't be sufficient enough.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Basically, these reasons:
More yields @ 2.9Ghz
Lower temps = cheaper HSF to include
AMD has nothing against C2D right now
Save the Ace for later
Balances prices so the 6600, 6700, 6400, 6300, and the 4300 can be priced higher
 
If Intel released them clocked to the max, the overclockers would complain they were no good. :)
 
too makes the chips more affordable and they also laid off 10,000 workers... because they couldnt make a profit from such a price cut.
 
JVC said:
what? what about the fx-74 and intels e6300, e6400 ???
Click to expand...

:confused:

How about the inefficiency of the FX-74 and the price?!!? We're talking about price/performance/watt here. Sure, an AMD X2 @ 3.Ghz will be faster than a 1.8Ghz C2D but think about the other factors.
 
Michael Daly said:
If Intel released them clocked to the max, the overclockers would complain they were no good. :)
Click to expand...

lol so true.

SentToSchool said:
:confused:
How about the inefficiency of the FX-74 and the price?!!? We're talking about price/performance/watt here. Sure, an AMD X2 @ 3.Ghz will be faster than a 1.8Ghz C2D but think about the other factors.
Click to expand...

Like the fact that a 6300 can overclock to 3ghz+ and are several hundred dollars cheaper.
 
I can easily get my E6600 over 3 GHz with the stock cooler, so I don't think even that is an issue.

I think that Intel might have been overly cautious... yields are better than they expect... and they probably want to limit the C2D somewhat to phase out the Pentium/Celeron chips more comfortably. Make the C2D too good and too cheap, and you end up with the Pentiums in a landfill. They still need more time to convert all their factories to C2D, a lot of Pentiums are still rolling off the assembly lines everyday.

I think AMD will be in REAL trouble when the last Pentium leaves the factory... Then it's all systems go for C2D. Which will probably be in about 6-9 months.
 
Like the others have said, it's just another ace Intel has up their sleeve. When K8L comes out and barely edges out C2D, Intel pulls out 45nm C2Ds at 1333FSB with 6MB of cache and 3GHz+ clock speeds (and some cheap Quads as well). AMD spends millions on K8L R&D, only to be fragged by a skimpy Conroe refresh (Penryn, I think it's called?).
 
Quite.

Some info I gathered on K8L over time:
1) The architecture has been updated to improve IPC... this will probably be in the range of 10-20% gain over current K8.
2) The pipeline length has not been changed, therefore it cannot scale higher in clockspeed than the current K8. Possibly even lower, because of the higher transistorcount per core, and the fact that they want to put 4 cores on one die, so under one cooler. We've seen info stating that K8L will be available up to 2.9 GHz.
3) The quadcore will be a single processor in a single socket, hence a single memory controller for 4 cores.

Now if I compare that with 4x4, then I see a theoretical increase because of the higher IPC, paired with the disadvantages of lower clockspeed (they probably won't introduce at 2.9 GHz right away, but rather ~2.5 GHz) and less memory bandwidth, because you have one controller instead of two.

So I predict that K8L will be marginally faster than the 4x4 at introduction... Which means that it may or may not outperform the current QX6700.
Ofcourse, by that time Intel probably introduced a faster quadcore model, so Intel probably still leads in terms of performance... especially when 45 nm and 1333 MHz FSB is introduced. That should allow for both larger caches and higher clockspeeds, and perhaps some small improvements to the architecture for even more IPC.

So yea, I think it looks like Intel has things under control, and has an ace up their sleeves should K8L be faster than I suspect it is.
 
B/c most people don't overclock. They just buy a Dell, HP, etc... and they're stuck with that default clock. So right now, most of the PC's being sold are with stock processors 6300,6400,6600. (1.86, 2.1 & 2.4Ghz)

They're all faster than equivalent priced AMD processors, but they'll need to be upgraded long before if they had been selling 3.3XE, 3.16, 3.0, 2.8 & 2.6 as the 5 speed grades and the low 3 as comparables.
 
Scali2 said:
I can easily get my E6600 over 3 GHz with the stock cooler, so I don't think even that is an issue.

I think that Intel might have been overly cautious... yields are better than they expect... and they probably want to limit the C2D somewhat to phase out the Pentium/Celeron chips more comfortably. Make the C2D too good and too cheap, and you end up with the Pentiums in a landfill. They still need more time to convert all their factories to C2D, a lot of Pentiums are still rolling off the assembly lines everyday.

I think AMD will be in REAL trouble when the last Pentium leaves the factory... Then it's all systems go for C2D. Which will probably be in about 6-9 months.
Click to expand...


QFT!
 
alg7_munif said:
If we look at S939 CPUs, people can overclock them to around 2.8GHz and the top of the line CPU is the FX-60 with the stock speed at 2.6GHz. I don't understand why Conroe X6800 stock speed is only 2.93GHz but many people can overclock the C2D CPUs to around 3.5GHz. Why the stock speed of the X6800 is not at around 3.3GHz and the stock speed of the E6300 is not at around 2.3GHz. Conroe CPUs are not only clock to clock faster than AMD's CPUs but they also can have a higher clock so why don't Intel sell the CPUs at a higher stock clock?
Click to expand...

the product NUMBERS are positional "ranking" indicators, and have nothing to do with speed. Why do you care what the 2.93GHz cpu is CALLED?

How they came up with the numbering scheme, I don't know, but

e6300 = 1.86gz (266 x 7)
e6400 = 2.13 ghz (266 x 8)
e6600 = 2.4 ghz (266 x 9 + double cache)
[this would lend one to believe that an "e6500" in the future could be 2.4ghz @ 2mb, or 2.13ghz @ 4mb)
e6700 = 2.66 ghz (266 x 10)
x6800 = 2.93 ghz (266 x 11)
an "x6900" could be 3.2ghz (266x12)

But, if the x6800 were 3.2 ghz, what would they call the 266x11?

This is no different than the "4200+, 4400+, 4600+, 4800+" concepts by amd.
 
Lol, this thread is not about why the CPUs are called that way but about why the CPUs are not sold at a higher stock speed even if they are more than capable to do a higher clock speed, even the top of the line CPU is sold way below the capable clock speed.
 
alg7_munif said:
Lol, this thread is not about why the CPUs are called that way but about why the CPUs are not sold at a higher stock speed even if they are more than capable to do a higher clock speed, even the top of the line CPU is sold way below the capable clock speed.
Click to expand...

Usually, not always, The FX-74's are likely close to their clock limits, as are the FX-62 at the time of their introduction.
 
From what I recall back in the Pentium 4 days, Intel reached the threshold of frequencies on silicon using stock hardware and preventing it from burning out. They were able to get 3.8 GHz before realizing that any more speed would probably result in meltdown or electromigration. The solution to that was to add another core aka: Pentium D. Another core equaled more performance for the buck.

Once again, Intel hit the silicon brick wall and had to devise a newer technology that would perform better than the Pentium D yet run cooler. What success did they have back then that did just that; The good ole PIII Coppermine. Open up a Coppermine, add another core, 4x the L2 cache and increase the frequency over 800 MHz. Presto, you have Core 2 Duo. The Pentium III had a superior FPU back in the day that even killed the P4 Willamettes, it made sense to use it for a new processor design. Your average E6300 has the nearly the same FPU power as a Pentium D at 3.6 to 3.8 GHz. Intel did the same thing that AMD did; Proving that clock speed didn't mean squat.

You might have seen pictures of people running their little D805's at 4.0GHz, or the famous P4 631 at the same frequencies, but bare in mind that they would never have been able to do it on stock cooling. We have to remember that Intel kept their threshold for a good reason.
 
It's not as simple as taking a Coppermine and increasing the clockspeed.
Every architecture has its maximum clockspeed... for the P3 this is much lower than the 3+ GHz speeds that C2D get.
The entire pipeline has been redesigned. It's not like a Coppermine at all anymore.
It's more like a balance between P3 and P4 designs. P3 was too little, P4 was too much, so the sweet spot had to be somewhere in the middle... Athlon is between P3 and P4 aswell, but C2D is aimed between Athlon and P4, and so far seems to be the most successful. Longer pipeline, so higher clockspeed, yet still better IPC.

C2D has a longer pipeline than P3, but because of improvements that have been done to the execution units, and the fact that we can put more units, they can still get a higher IPC.
 
fireluxx said:
... What success did they have back then that did just that; The good ole PIII Coppermine. Open up a Coppermine, add another core, 4x the L2 cache and increase the frequency over 800 MHz. ...
Click to expand...

You're practically saying something along the lines : Take a Ford Model T , put another engine in it , use 98 petrol and bang , you've got a Saleen S7.

Can you see how braindamaged your claim is ?

Core 2 shares only one thing with the P6 core : design philosophy , that is choosing the "brainiac" model vs. speed racer.That's all , nothing more. ;)
 
Core 2 shares only one thing with the P6 core : design philosophy , that is choosing the "brainiac" model vs. speed racer.That's all , nothing more.
Click to expand...

Not even that.
Back when the P6-core was designed, the main goal was to increase clockspeed.
The P6 actually had slightly lower IPC than the Pentium MMX in many cases.
But the clockspeed went from the Pentium's 233 to the Pentium-M's clockspeed of ~2 GHz.

The Pentium is the real 'brainiac' CPU... it's the last-ever CPU that had a massive increase in IPC (both lower latency on instructions and more parallelism) over its predecessor, while still having higher clockspeed.

C2D doesn't look all that weird if you remove P4 from the equation... which you should, since P4 was not the right choice in retrospect, so Intel backtracked a little.
Compared to P6 (or K7/K8), the C2D is still a CPU that mainly improves on clockspeed, and only marginally on IPC. Latencies remain the same, sometimes even higher, just more parallelism... Most gain comes from the fact that we have larger caches, bigger buffers for branch prediction, and just generally a higher transistor-quota to spend because of improved manufacturing processes. The execution core itself isn't faster, it may in fact be slower. That is the trend that started with the P6-core.
P4 just makes it look like a big increase in IPC and a decrease in clockspeed.
 
fireluxx said:
From what I recall back in the Pentium 4 days, Intel reached the threshold of frequencies on silicon using stock hardware and preventing it from burning out. They were able to get 3.8 GHz before realizing that any more speed would probably result in meltdown or electromigration. The solution to that was to add another core aka: Pentium D. Another core equaled more performance for the buck.

Once again, Intel hit the silicon brick wall and had to devise a newer technology that would perform better than the Pentium D yet run cooler. What success did they have back then that did just that; The good ole PIII Coppermine. Open up a Coppermine, add another core, 4x the L2 cache and increase the frequency over 800 MHz. Presto, you have Core 2 Duo. The Pentium III had a superior FPU back in the day that even killed the P4 Willamettes, it made sense to use it for a new processor design. Your average E6300 has the nearly the same FPU power as a Pentium D at 3.6 to 3.8 GHz. Intel did the same thing that AMD did; Proving that clock speed didn't mean squat.

You might have seen pictures of people running their little D805's at 4.0GHz, or the famous P4 631 at the same frequencies, but bare in mind that they would never have been able to do it on stock cooling. We have to remember that Intel kept their threshold for a good reason.
Click to expand...

Ok this thread is going way off topic.

FYI: a P4 631 (CedarMill = 65nm) can hit 4Ghz easily with stock cooling. Many hit 4.5++ with aftermarket cooling In fact, someone just hit 8Ghz with one using liquid nitrogen and a P5B motherboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top