Forgive the odd title, but having seen some of the early benches for the Sandy Bridge/S1155 CPUs I'm thinking that unlike with S1156/S1366 we're pretty much back to the situation with 775 that 90-95% of Intel users (AMD is certainly viable in the budget/HTPC market, but is far out-classed in the mainstream/performance fields, and will be until their new architecture comes out and maybe not even then - in the desktop at least) only need the 'mainstream' socket with the 'high-end'/'performance' socket being reserved for the ultra-high-end Dream PCs and 'crazy-but-cool' builds (I'm thinking SLI/X-Fire of high-end boards mainly). Anyone have any thoughts?
haha I don't see the point of 1155. It doesn't improve on my current system......... 1155 replaces 1156 2011 replaces 1366 So yes i see the point of 2011,
How do you think Intel will be able to cram 16 cores into a single cpu? The shrink to 12nm isn't going to happen overnight, and after that intel can forget tick tock, but for Patsburg/ Ivy Bridge, they will be using 22nm process. This means to cram in 16 cores the socket must be massive. Also, to not bottleneck this power, there must be blazingly fast communication between motherboard and CPU, hence 2011 pins.
I echo that. I think it will follow in much the same way this last generation (if you can call LGA1156/1366 that) and just step up performance in the same way. LGA1155 is to LGA1156 as what LGA2011 will be to LGA1366. When LGA1366 came around, it was an incredible boost in performance over the previous stuff... I'm hoping 2011 is much the same.
I think it'll be great mate. Eight full cores - no sharing of FPUs and such, but eight true full cores - 20MB of shared L3 cache, and quad channel DDR3 memory on a single 32nm process die, and with clock rates similar to the quad-core Sandy Bridge
You lot are pretty savvy and most likely know of `Moore's law` but interesting reading all the same.. I thought I'd read somewhere that we were exceeding the projected processing power etc...Intel will eventually turn into Cyberdyne systems and bring the modern world to an end...ahem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
I personally fail to see the point of the 4th memory channel, and I don't waste my money on SLI/xfire, so I never see myself buying a socket 2011 processor.
The point of quad-channel RAM is, as CPUs grow ever faster, they need more RAM bandwidth to be fed information faster and to not have to make the processor wait for the information from the RAM. It is so the CPU isn't bottlenecked.
It will be like comparing 1156 to 1366. Are you saying there's no point in 1366? Simple as that really. If I thought there was no point, I wouldn't be holding off upgrading until it's arrival.
I've read somewhere that it's not going to be quad channel, but dual-dual-channel. Not sure of the difference, but it sounded quite plausable. Something to do with the CPU architecture. I'll post the link if I find it...
there was no point in 1366 after 1156 came out... (naturally before 1156 came out there was) this time 2011 is coming out after 1155 so it better be... well a sh*t load better.
same here, 1366 never appealed to me: have to spend way much on memory (had 8GB at the time, was 6GB is a downgrade), then get features i will never use, and a chipset that consumes unnecessarily high amount of power. CPU processing power grows faster than memory speed, yes. but CPU cache technology innovates even faster. there really is no need for triple channel in the beginning, quad channel is certainly not needed for consumers. at least not needed with current crazy level of 8MB or more L3 cache.
Having just bought a 1366 system, as my previous one really died (like a Norwegian Blue!), I was surprised at the speed increase over my Quad 6600 775 system. I mean, of-course I knew it was going to be faster, but I was really impressed! What did 'challenge' me was the size of a decent cooler to keep the temps. down and I chose the Frio which is Huge! I know that the smaller the nanometre technology, the cooler it should run, but I am beginning to wonder if CPU's of the future will have to have Vapor-cooling built into them and then a huge fan on top as they get larger and even hotter? I guess in three-years I'll get upgraded again, but currently my i7-950, Asus P6X58D-E and 6GB of Corsair memory, all running at stock, pretty much run everything I need for the forseeable future. So I look forward to LGA 2011, but probably wont buy it until it's LGA 2014! Cheers, MP
"you get the extra memory bandwidth and pci-e lanes" memory bandwidth means nothing for 99.9999% of tasks and the extra pci-e lanes only to pete J.... the extra $$$ for 1366 could have been better spent on improving almost any area of the system for more improvement.
With the current arcitecture, raw memory bandwidth is largely meaningless above 15GB/s . The sandybridge memory controller (not to mention the rest of the CPU) is far better than Nehalem and I think that this bit-tech article proves that hands down: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/memory/2011/01/11/the-best-memory-for-sandy-bridge/ Correct me if I'm wrong, but sandybridge at 17GB/s (dual channel 1,333MHz CL9) makes a mockery of Nehalem running 25.5GB/s (triple channel 1,600MHz CL9). I'm not saying 2 more channels on sandybridge wouldn't give better performance, but I am saying that I'm unwilling to pay the extra money for little to no perfomance gain.
1366 give me access to 980x which makes adobe and Sony Vegas fly ( I use them day to day) you have to remember for some people on here they have full top end sr2 boards and they are only used to fold on, extra cost was low at best 930 board and ram vs 860 board and ram cost did was around £60-£80. Anyone using sli or crossfire pretty much needed x58 board at the time
there's less sense to go for x58 platform for folding. it consumes more power and costs more to buy. folding doesn't really need the memory bus or the PCIe lanes, so a basic i7 860 + a couple graphics cards will do much better, performance per watt or per cost
