<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Intel overclocks Sandy to 4.9GHz</title>
		<description>Discuss Intel overclocks Sandy to 4.9GHz</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:34:23 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/20218/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4207</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Maybe Lightwave does only support 8-threads, I honestly don't know. I do know that the licenses version supports up to 999 distributed render nodes, so obviously workloads can be broken up substantially. The problem is people who run SPECapc with Lightwave usually do so with the trial version of the software. Who knows if that allows maximum thread spawning. Also, 6-cores/12-threads beating 24 cores is impressive even if the clock speed of the 6-core processor is much higher. Assuming the software supports it. Threads do not equal cores. At best each core in a Gulftown gets a 25% bonus from it's logical, SMT core. Usually it's a lot less.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:39:13 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4207</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4206</link>
			<description><![CDATA[you're right it does have 6 cores. i misread your comment there. doesn't change a whole lot thou. 8 is the maximum threads I've seen in a light-wave benchmark. even without that, beating twice the threads running at half the speed isn't all that impressive.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:43:14 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4206</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4205</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Intel never demoed a 10GHz CPU. The original Nehalem, a 65nm Netburst chip on a 1200MHz FSB was supposed to debut at ~9GHz and then quickly ramp to 10.20GHz. Obviously this never happened, but intel also never built these chips even in prototype form. I'm sure they had prototype 90nm Tejas chips, but that was cancelled before it made it to market. Prescott was supposed to make it to 5.2GHz and Tejas was supposed to sit between Prescott and the Netburst Nehalem.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:53:02 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4205</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4204</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A 980X has 6-cores/12-threads. I honestly don't know how many threads Lightwave spwans, I have a sneaking suspicion you don't either. All I am certain of is the next generation of the product is going to spawn as many threads as possible.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:26:36 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4204</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4203</link>
			<description><![CDATA[you have to remember this is Intel. the company that demonstrated a 10ghz net-burst CPU. of course it's a completely different ballgame now and I'm not excepting anywhere near that amount of discrepancy (in fact I'd be disappointed if 4ghz wouldn't be a reasonable amount of over-clock to expect). but when it comes to cherry picking Intel does have the skill to make it happen.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:38:04 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4203</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4202</link>
			<description><![CDATA[so, what you're saying is that because lightwave doesn't scale beyond 8 threads, 4 cores+HT at 4.4ghz are then faster then 2x12 core(of which 8 are used) running at at most 2.2ghz.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:31:18 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4202</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4201</link>
			<description><![CDATA[With regards to price, I'd guess the 2600K (4-core/8-thread) will slot into the $562 price bracket while the 2500K (4-core/4-thread) will be $250 or so.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 17:59:11 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4201</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4200</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Considering that a 4.4GHz 980X is faster in Lightwave than two AMD 12-cores the results are not that surprising. Granted it's a different benchmark, with a quad core processor. On the other hand, it's a new micro-architecture. It seems this has the panties of the AMD fanboy contingent in a bunch, but is it really that surprising? SNB is a tock, it's a new micro-architecture. Nehalem/Westemere was very fast, SNB is going to probably be 20% faster clock to clock. Anyone who thought that AMD didn't have it's work cut out for it with Bulldozer was delusional. Not only will Bulldozer have to deal with these SNB chips, it will have to deal with the 8-core/16-thread beasts for the high-end desktop/workstation and server markets.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 17:53:49 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4200</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4194</link>
			<description><![CDATA[dude, who said every wafer needs to have a chip like this on it? there is absolutely no reason for this.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:10:01 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4194</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>boobster says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4192</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I don't think that it is very important. I assume the chip is cherry picked. If the average Joe gets a cpu that can overclock between 4 and 4.5GHz (on a stock cooler), that would impress a lot of people. Maybe Bulldoze is as good or better. We don't know because there have been no previews or leaks...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>boobster</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:55:14 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20218-intel-overclocks-sandy-to-49ghz#comment-4192</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
