Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 17 Jun 2009.
So from a system builder's standpoint, would I be better off building an i7 setup BEFORE the change?
Am I the only person that thinks this naming convention is a good idea?
What has been the main criticism about CPU / GPU naming conventions? From what I've seen it's that the "layman" couldn't tell if one was faster than the other by number alone.
Now as I understand it, an i7 will be "better" than an "i5"?
Sounds good to me
Because they say the Core 2 lines will be phased out, but since the processors will stay for a while longer the only logical choice is they become i3's. The G41/P43 refresh boards will come in Sept. also, as other LGA775 chipsets like the P45 become EOL sometime in that quarter.
I guess Atom will be for Windows XP/Windows 7 Starter on netbooks... Celeron & Pentium for Windows 7 Starter/Home Basic on desktops... Core i3, Core i5, AND Core i7 for Windows 7 Home Premium and above.
But wait, 5 different CPUs with different speeds... and a different socket for some of them. Wouldn't that be somewhere near at least 20+ different configurations to choose from?!
ah wonderful, Intel has just done what nvidia has been up to.
Socket 1366 needed to be kept for the server/workstation market, replacing (or rebranding) Xeons.
Intel should've hung on to release Socket 1156 for the home market.
There's nothing wrong with the 'current' LGA775/Core2 setup atm.
Well I honestly think that unless the higher Socket 1156 CPU never goes higher than the €200 price point, Intel will systematically phase out the lower end Socket 1366 CPUs instead of dropping prices. Otherwise they'll promote "competition" between both sockets. That's why I think that Core i7 920 was an exception in terms of price and we won't see that again with the arrival of the Socket 1156 CPUs. However, this is just my opinion and I do hope I'm wrong.
I completely agree. If Intel cared about the average consumer they would have released the Socket 1156 CPUs first and reserve the Socket 1366 CPUs for the server/workstation market and the ultra-enthusiast users (like Skulltrail).
Nvidia never did something this bad; the base product was so good that it lasted for a very long time (till g300) covering two ati's generations. If the competitor calls steps generations, than the one making jumps has marketing problems.
Intel on the other hand is not capable of making jumps any more because it has hit the wall of their licence-armor x86 architecture. They (ab)used the last big core2 to build a marketing platform which should hide the performance still-stand when going over 3 cores. The tech customers are however something very different from those keen on cosmetics (L'Oreal,Vichy,...). The novelty of an excellent 4core has weared out long ago. We only needed an optimization of the platform (ddr and sli/crossfire). This optimization(x58) was then sold by Intel in the same way as salad on the market where they dip it in water before weighting it. Only 1% of customers was willing to open the purses. The greed was left hungering; now they've got themselves experts in blackmailing.
Many of us had big hopes in Cell (IBM) PC, however the company decided again against customers and tech in favor of "their" small blue.
Oh so it's a rebrand to clear stock then?
Kill yourself idiot, I can't even ask a question without being branded a troll.
My thoughts on your comments:
1 & 2) Yes, it maybe a problem for us enthusiast but for Joe Higashi.. err, Joe Dirt? Um.. Joe average, they'll simply ignores it because they don't know that it's a rebranded products. And even if they, I think they won't think it as a problem because it's Intel anyway, everything made by Intel should be good.
3) I don't think laptop's CPUs were slower than an equivalent desktop CPUs anymore nowadays. IMO, it's not the CPU which should be blamed for the slower performance, it's mroe like the other components can't keep up with the CPU, eg. the onboard GPUs, slower RAMs, slower HDD, etc. So the CPU itself is actually a little faster than their desktop equivalent, they're just can't be pushed like their desktop counterparts because of the environment they must live in; the cooling system and the max heat dissipation which must be lower because you wouldn't want your lap to burn while you're using your laptop, don't you? ;-)
Anyhow, I would say Intel would be able to walk out of this problem safely. I really don't get it why only Valve seems to be troubled with all of this "rebranding" problems? XD nVidia did this for years and their sales still on top.. why??? ~_~
cmon, you have to admit your statement would read exactly what an Intel troll would post.
Don't want to be branded a troll, don't post like one.
you should have just asked why Bit-Tech thought Intel was going to rebrand its chipsets. I respect what Bit-Tech writes, so far they haven't made foolish statements.
You sir, need to grow up before you post on these boards..
Angry Internet Man
I'm quite glad that my C2D 6750 is still fine for me even at stock speed in a poor motherboard with slow memory. My next upgrade will be to a better motherboard and memory - then seriously looking at AMD unless Intel sort out this mess.
Looks like the i7 8-- series will be the ones to have then
Unless you make a boycott decision and move to AMD
This still isn't QUITE as bad as NVidia's renaming I think, as NVidia were trying to pull off old products as ones in the new range, despite fundamentally being the same product.
i3 is the only one Intel are doing like this, which isn't so bad, as I can see the people buying i3 will be the sort of people who don't care much what processor is inside.
Socket 1156 i7 chips will be the way forwards I reckon (overclocking/bang-for-buck wise).
Well, I'm getting a X4 940 BE or a X4 920, just because it's cheaper..
Reading through that and the comments I think ive worked someting out that makes sense, at least to me. The brand will reflect the quality of the part but in the sense of if the part is full functioning ie. full cache and running at intended clock speed rather than a cut down version of a top end part. i7 is top end so socket 1366 is it will all be top parts along with the cream of 1156 and laptop parts (since laptops parts need low power useage will same speeds). i5 is i7s with missing cache and lower clock speeds. Any comments on this suggestion or has the hamster died but the wheel is still spinning?? lol
Maybe you should figure out what a troll is before branding people as one. You are just one of those typical forumers who are always quick to use the troll argument on anyone's opinion they disagree with. It wasn't a troll post at all, I was wondering why they had put in such a prediction in a news article as they don't normally seem to do that on bit tech.
I didn't say anything about foolishness on the part of Bit-Tech. I also didn't say they were wrong. Please go back to primary school and learn some reading comprehension.
so AMD/ATI is like for the most part the only "honest" company in this field
understatement of the year. fitting after the gts 250 shenanigans.
One thing that made me laugh was looking at the Phenom II categories on Scan.
$ categories for Phenom II, one ategory with a single processor in it, one has two processors and then 3 and then 4 processors in each category.
Separate names with a comma.