Intels Skylake-X and Coffee Lake CPUs Discussion

[Thunderball]

HEDT is branding but not classification? Intel may have started that trend but it is most certainly a classification.
ThreadRipper 1900X shouldn't be HEDT no, just like 7740X/7640X... the difference here however is the fact that even that 1900X delivers a full 64 PCIe lanes and Quad Channel memory, i.e. nothing has been skimped and isn't tacked on as an afterthought.
Indeed though... keep trying.

I'm not trying anything. HEDT (whatever you might think it is) didnt exist before Intel brought it up. You can of course look at it from both ways, saying that none of the previous platforms were HEDT or that all of them were HEDT in terms of features available (that's what I'm saying). And I agree about 1900X, but it's not about what's more appropriate for HEDT (because it's not a standard, and the definition was for the longest time shaped by what Intel did with it, as a single player on the market), it's about the features of the platform, regarding how well a specific processor takes advantage of those.

Ok perhaps I should've phrased this differently:
This is not a possibility to do on any chip barring an eXtreme model, which then are even more of a rare item to see than now, you hear people whine about paying 1000 USD for a consumer chip... how about then being 1200 USD for a consumer chip?
99,99% of anyone out there bought the cheaper part and overclocked it if they needed more speed, by which multipliers only went up to as high as it goes stock.
Meaning multiplier overclocking was not going to happen, it was FSB OC only.
Or did you somehow managed to find a way to change a Q6600 (picking random example) into a QX6800 (because QX6850 was 1600FSB and didn't work on most boards) so we can enjoy multiplier OC? (not to mention Multiplier OC was actually generally way more unstable than FSB OC)

Remember the topic was OCing, technically you can include the QX editions but that was rarer than me being struck by lightning in the face RIGHT NOW by Zeus himself from Mount Olympus.
But perhaps that was my mistake for not stating general overclocking instead of 0,001% multiplier instability overclocking, I'd assumed you'd not take that path of nitpicking... I have only myself to blame I guess.

I actually have no complaints on how it worked because you actually had a lot of settings to play with to make it work (unlike a lot of modern boards). Not meant to nitpick, you just have a tendency to stray away from the topic and this time I didnt have a slightest idea where you're going with it.

It's all just down to Intel being a dick and cutting down iGPU power. -.-

All I'm saying that there was nothing inherently wrong with Intel iGPUs for HTPC (even if they were subpar in performance), especially if Intel shipped their lowend CPUs with more iGPU cores.

Like I stated prior which you seem to not understand, was the 7740X/7640X designed for the X299 platform? Can the CPU utilize the same resources? Does it have the ability to drive the same things as it's bigger say 7800X sibling?
No? It was an afterthought just stuck in there by Intel? Oh it's literally a 7700K with the iGPU fused off soldered to the right pins on an LGA2066 PCB? Oh... no, no it is not HEDT, it is nothing short of a gimmick, but if you truly want to argue semantics whilst full well knowing exactly what was implied (even specifically implied) then go ahead, call the 7640X/7740X HEDT, I won't correct you even if it's literally a gimmick according to the entire tech industry and the motherboard manufacturers.

No, they cannot, but that's not the point. Noone advertised to you that you're going to have full set of features when installing a newer processor into an older motherboard. PCIe 3.0 with Sandy Bridge? Nope, install an Ivy Bridge CPU and you got it. Optane with Kaby Lake on Z170? Nope, but CPU is fully supported. Yes, 7640X/7740X are a gimmick, but they work on Basin Falls chipset, so does Skylake-X, and those CPU represent different uArches.

Re-read the original question, perhaps you'll learn what the question was.
But even if you do or even did, I doubt you'd answer properly and truthfully.

Oh are we on about age now? Nice, childish resorts there.
I am very likely older than you are and as we can clearly see considerably more experienced and knowledgeable.

That's good one.

Oh btw:
Kentsfield: Core2 Quad Q6600 - 1066FSB (Technically 266MHz but w/e... stupid MT/s)
Kentsfield: Core2 Quad QX6850 - 1333FSB (Technically 333MHz but w/e ... again)

Yorkfield: Core2 Quad Q8000/Q9000 series - All 1333FSB
Yorkfield: Core2 Quad QX9770 / QX9775 series - 1600FSB (technically 400MHz but w/e ... again again)

Wolfdale: Core2 Duo E7000 series - All 1066FSB
Wolfdale: Core2 Duo E8000 series - All 1333FSB

There's also Conroe which had all from 800 - 1333FSB ... this spans from Jan 2006 up to and including March 2010, including it's motherboards.
1333FSBs were tacked on later, especially the 1600FSB ... since the earlier revisions were for Pentium D 775 etc. and used an even lower FSB.
Not all motherboards also supported these speeds and if you did get one that supported them early on you had buggy operation.
They were not the defacto speeds and the multipliers were locked regardless.

So? Conroes were supported by all boards that supported Core 2s (except for the boards which didnt get a BIOS update to support 1333 MHz FSB, but that's just BIOS, you could mod it yourself). Unfortunately, a lot of those same boards didnt support Wolfdale, Kentsfield and Yorkfield - I doubt we would find out why. And let's not talk about extreme ones here: QX7770s were not even supported by a lot of the boards using latest LGA775 chipsets: it's pretty stupid to implement 1600 MHz FSB support for one chip that is not even current, and noone will ever have.

There were also an incredible crapton of chipsets (nVidia nForce 4 SLI anyone? Who loved that? ADMIT IT!) which could and couldn't support those speeds, hell even today for those cheapskates who buy Core2 Xeon series have to watch what FSB to buy in order for their mobo to work with it or not just to extend the life of their servers a bit.

They were fucking hot (no shit btw, those were tiny, I'd guess that Nvidia used at least 2 steps smaller fab process for those), died like flies, but it was much easier with those. They either supported all Core 2, all Core 2 dual cores, or none at all.

Nor does the LGA775 wiki page state this either:

945s could physically support all 65nm Core 2s, but very few of them even supported all Conroes.

Nope, those are all a figment of my imagination and doesn't even remotely explain why your comparison is not even remotely valid.
(Little bit of a sarcasm addition there, hope you noticed!)

But I'll return to state the following: Read the original question and answer it since you're so skilfully trying to dodge.
This will double invalidate your point entirely.

Stop skimping for arguments where there arent any. Just admit you're wrong, I'm not the one to remind people of the things they didnt know.

[Enfilade]

Can you dense cunts stop arguing and talk about this instead:

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lak...nchmarks-leak/

Infracted - No need for that attitude.

[Thunderball]

Can you dense cunts stop arguing and talk about this instead:

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lak...nchmarks-leak/

What is there to talk about? All depends on the price. It's obviously a downclocked previous generation chip, so it's gonna be a great performer. If the price is competitive it's gonna be a bestseller.

[Evildeffy]

I'm not trying anything. HEDT (whatever you might think it is) didnt exist before Intel brought it up. You can of course look at it from both ways, saying that none of the previous platforms were HEDT or that all of them were HEDT in terms of features available (that's what I'm saying). And I agree about 1900X, but it's not about what's more appropriate for HEDT (because it's not a standard, and the definition was for the longest time shaped by what Intel did with it, as a single player on the market), it's about the features of the platform, regarding how well a specific processor takes advantage of those.

Like I said before, it may have started out as such but it is a classification now.
Of course the classification alters, but calling older gen architectures are HEDT... -.-

I actually have no complaints on how it worked because you actually had a lot of settings to play with to make it work (unlike a lot of modern boards). Not meant to nitpick, you just have a tendency to stray away from the topic and this time I didnt have a slightest idea where you're going with it.

I can literally state the exact same thing... (latter part of your statement) but w/e .. this is getting tiring, let's move on.

All I'm saying that there was nothing inherently wrong with Intel iGPUs for HTPC (even if they were subpar in performance), especially if Intel shipped their lowend CPUs with more iGPU cores.

They can't, they don't have the expertise nor the IP to do so.
They've done good but AMD's iGPUs > Intel ones by quite a margin, and expected to get bigger.

No, they cannot, but that's not the point. Noone advertised to you that you're going to have full set of features when installing a newer processor into an older motherboard. PCIe 3.0 with Sandy Bridge? Nope, install an Ivy Bridge CPU and you got it. Optane with Kaby Lake on Z170? Nope, but CPU is fully supported. Yes, 7640X/7740X are a gimmick, but they work on Basin Falls chipset, so does Skylake-X, and those CPU represent different uArches.

There's a distinct difference between support and afterthought ... but w/e ... I'm getting tired of the points you're either not willing or unable to comprehend.. moving on.

That's good one.

Yeah and it's funny ... because it's true.

So? Conroes were supported by all boards that supported Core 2s (except for the boards which didnt get a BIOS update to support 1333 MHz FSB, but that's just BIOS, you could mod it yourself). Unfortunately, a lot of those same boards didnt support Wolfdale, Kentsfield and Yorkfield - I doubt we would find out why. And let's not talk about extreme ones here: QX7770s were not even supported by a lot of the boards using latest LGA775 chipsets: it's pretty stupid to implement 1600 MHz FSB support for one chip that is not even current, and noone will ever have.

I thought we started with "All were supported"... I clearly gave you examples which weren't as to your comment of me not knowing LGA775 and now you're acknowledging that they aren't... I could continue on with this but you've proven my point, thanks for that.

They were fucking hot (no shit btw, those were tiny, I'd guess that Nvidia used at least 2 steps smaller fab process for those), died like flies, but it was much easier with those. They either supported all Core 2, all Core 2 dual cores, or none at all.

Not really... LGA775 was a hot complicated mess and Intel moved away from it with good reason, I may not like it because of mobo/chipset changes but they've never been able to define things clearly across chipsets... AMD could and did.
Doesn't change my point at all though.

945s could physically support all 65nm Core 2s, but very few of them even supported all Conroes.

Of course they could "Physically" support them... it's LGA775 -.-
Doesn't mean they COULD run it, missing the point once more.

Stop skimping for arguments where there arent any. Just admit you're wrong, I'm not the one to remind people of the things they didnt know.

Cool.. I'm skimping arguments.. Yep I am.. you still have not read or answered the question and you suppose I'm wrong?
Keep holding on to that dream of yours that you're right, it may become reality when .. "Kad vrba rodi grozdje i jova jabuka".
Have fun translating that.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you dense cunts stop arguing and talk about this instead:

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lak...nchmarks-leak/

Infracted - No need for that attitude.

I already posted that before.

Also this is better to discuss about:
http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-87...-8-core-ryzen/

If leaks are true (clock changes in that article ... again) .. it means it's literally a Kaby Lake on 6 cores as single threaded performance is identical (as well as clock speeds).
Which means that my earlier assessment still holds.. Coffee Lake needs to improve power efficiency by ~60% to account for this or Intel is playing shenanigans with TDP as mentioned prior.

My bet is on the latter.

[Life-Binder]

in terms of clock speeds, we are looking at a 3.7 GHz base frequency which boosts up to 4.3 GHz (6 core), 4.4 GHz (4 core), 4.5 GHz (2 core) and 4.5 GHz (1 core)

nice nice

[Evildeffy]

nice nice

See the last paragraph of my last post.

[Life-Binder]

its not about 8700K performance so idc

[Evildeffy]

its not about 8700K performance so idc

Need glasses? It is, have a proper look.

[Denpepe]

Which means that my earlier assessment still holds.. Coffee Lake needs to improve power efficiency by ~60% to account for this or Intel is playing shenanigans with TDP as mentioned prior.

Skylake-x has 6-8-10-12 and 14 core with a tdp of 140 watt so I don't see why an updated 6 core coffee lake could not run at 95w tdp like the 4 cores.

Ryzen has even 65w and 95w 6 and 8 cores those are also shenanigans then?

[Thunderball]

Skylake-x has 6-8-10-12 and 14 core with a tdp of 140 watt so I don't see why an updated 6 core coffee lake could not run at 95w tdp like the 4 cores.

Ryzen has even 65w and 95w 6 and 8 cores those are also shenanigans then?

Dont bother. It's pointless.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said before, it may have started out as such but it is a classification now.
Of course the classification alters, but calling older gen architectures are HEDT... -.-

So who classifies it, and what is the standard/specification? I dont see anything wrong with calling LGA775 a HEDT platform, back then jumping from 1/2 cores to 4 cores was big. Hell, even server chips maxxed out at 6 cores AND used the same platform.

They can't, they don't have the expertise nor the IP to do so.
They've done good but AMD's iGPUs > Intel ones by quite a margin, and expected to get bigger.

That all depends if AMD continues with their APU approach (which have seen them making processors with their main feature being iGPUs). So far Intel's approach got them a commanding lead in laptop segment and office PC segment.

There's a distinct difference between support and afterthought ... but w/e ... I'm getting tired of the points you're either not willing or unable to comprehend.. moving on.

Doesnt make any difference for an end user.

I thought we started with "All were supported"... I clearly gave you examples which weren't as to your comment of me not knowing LGA775 and now you're acknowledging that they aren't... I could continue on with this but you've proven my point, thanks for that.

No, we started with:

Show me a uArch of Intel CPUs where the Core i5/i7 were new CPUs on a new chipset and the Core i3 line EXCLUSIVELY being compatible with a previous series.

Stop trying to wiggle out of it. You have your example.

Not really... LGA775 was a hot complicated mess and Intel moved away from it with good reason, I may not like it because of mobo/chipset changes but they've never been able to define things clearly across chipsets... AMD could and did.
Doesn't change my point at all though.

Stop being such a fanboy. AMD have been doing the thing you're accusing Intel right now (with the socket changes) long before Intel started it. Moreover, all AMD chipsets since S754 up to AM3+ were so hot that it's a true miracle to find a working motherboard today.

Of course they could "Physically" support them... it's LGA775 -.-
Doesn't mean they COULD run it, missing the point once more.

They could run it. Motherboard manufacturers just wanted to sell new motherboards. That was the time when DDR2 had a hard time taking over DDR1.

[Evildeffy]

Skylake-x has 6-8-10-12 and 14 core with a tdp of 140 watt so I don't see why an updated 6 core coffee lake could not run at 95w tdp like the 4 cores.

Ryzen has even 65w and 95w 6 and 8 cores those are also shenanigans then?

Have you really been missing this entire conversation as to why?

I mean it's literally pages long ... or are you seriously just yanking my chain?

(I am asking seriously, if you really want to know I'll repeat the reasons why)

- - - Updated - - -

So who classifies it, and what is the standard/specification? I dont see anything wrong with calling LGA775 a HEDT platform, back then jumping from 1/2 cores to 4 cores was big. Hell, even server chips maxxed out at 6 cores AND used the same platform.

When it became a classification is when multiple vendors start using it to classify their cheaper consumer line and a business line of products.
When there's a clear differential between capabilities etc, like I said 3 times now, it may have started off coined by Intel as a branding but it has become a classification.
As for LGA775 being HEDT.... No.. just no.

That all depends if AMD continues with their APU approach (which have seen them making processors with their main feature being iGPUs). So far Intel's approach got them a commanding lead in laptop segment and office PC segment.

Because in both those latter scenarios a more potent CPU was generally preferred to a more powerful iGPU since AMD had Faildoz... I mean Bulldozer.
Intel's CPU was so far ahead this time unlike what it is now.

Doesnt make any difference for an end user.

Hah.. I see you've never worked retail, try that on for a while.

No, we started with:
Stop trying to wiggle out of it. You have your example.

Your actual very quote shows you exactly why you've been wrong since the beginning, try reading it again.

Stop being such a fanboy. AMD have been doing the thing you're accusing Intel right now (with the socket changes) long before Intel started it. Moreover, all AMD chipsets since S754 up to AM3+ were so hot that it's a true miracle to find a working motherboard today.

And this shows exactly how much you truly are aware of socket alterations and it's effects.
Also good job for properly reading my quote(!) ... I was actually complimenting Intel for doing so because it was a mess even though I may not like them changing sockets all the time, but I guess complimenting any manufacturer for something good at times makes me a fanboy huh?

As for the last part of your statement.... the only thing I can say is "HAHAHAHAHAHA.... shit you're funny... good material man... wait, that wasn't a joke?!".

Tell me again why Intel bribed and threatened the whole computer retail/business community during those socket eras again?
I'm sure it was because Intel had the overall superior product right?

AMD may have had flaws but platform mess like LGA775 was not one of them.

They could run it. Motherboard manufacturers just wanted to sell new motherboards. That was the time when DDR2 had a hard time taking over DDR1.

Right right... that would be around the time when none of those Intel CPUs had an Integrated Memory Controller on CPU meaning the motherboard required to have different memory controllers starting from RIMM to DDR1 to DDR2 to DDR3, not to mention prior mentioned even from Wikipedia's hot mess of chipsets with and without support, addition of higher FSBs, etc.

Of course motherboard manufacturers wanted to sell new motherboards but that doesn't change the fact that they COULDN'T run some CPUs due to actual hardware limitations of chipset and board.

[Thunderball]

When it became a classification is when multiple vendors start using it to classify their cheaper consumer line and a business line of products.
When there's a clear differential between capabilities etc, like I said 3 times now, it may have started off coined by Intel as a branding but it has become a classification.
As for LGA775 being HEDT.... No.. just no.

Not answering my question. Who classified/standardized HEDT and which parameters the does the system has to match to be classified as HEDT? I'm not asking for any official standards, because they dont exist.

Because in both those latter scenarios a more potent CPU was generally preferred to a more powerful iGPU since AMD had Faildoz... I mean Bulldozer.
Intel's CPU was so far ahead this time unlike what it is now.

Exactly. It was exactly the same way with HTPC: minimum iGPU requirements, best possible CPU and lowest price available.

Hah.. I see you've never worked retail, try that on for a while.

Never as a electronics store shop assistant, and proud of it. Never had any desire to have a job of screwing people over. Had a time of working at a grocery store though.

Your actual very quote shows you exactly why you've been wrong since the beginning, try reading it again.

Ok, so you want to be petty now?

And this shows exactly how much you truly are aware of socket alterations and it's effects.
Also good job for properly reading my quote(!) ... I was actually complimenting Intel for doing so because it was a mess even though I may not like them changing sockets all the time, but I guess complimenting any manufacturer for something good at times makes me a fanboy huh?

If you're saying that the mess is a good thing I take my words back. Pretty strange statement though.

As for the last part of your statement.... the only thing I can say is "HAHAHAHAHAHA.... shit you're funny... good material man... wait, that wasn't a joke?!".

Yeah, very funny. Especially when you have to replace those.

Tell me again why Intel bribed and threatened the whole computer retail/business community during those socket eras again?
I'm sure it was because Intel had the overall superior product right?

Well if they did "bribe and threaten" then someone should've been sentenced, right? Or you're making claims that could create you a bunch of problems.

And yes, Intel did indeed have a superior product ever since Conroe CPUs released.

AMD may have had flaws but platform mess like LGA775 was not one of them.

We just pretend that you didnt write it, because you said that you praised Intel for LGA775 two paragraphs above.

Right right... that would be around the time when none of those Intel CPUs had an Integrated Memory Controller on CPU meaning the motherboard required to have different memory controllers starting from RIMM to DDR1 to DDR2 to DDR3,

CPU doesnt have RAM slots. Motherboard doesnt need to have to support multiple memory types (although a lot of motherboards did at the time). Also if your memory controller dies it's much cheaper to replace a motherboard instead of a CPU.

not to mention prior mentioned even from Wikipedia's hot mess of chipsets with and without support, addition of higher FSBs, etc.

So older chipsets on the same socket not supporting newer CPUs is a good thing now?

Of course motherboard manufacturers wanted to sell new motherboards but that doesn't change the fact that they COULDN'T run some CPUs due to actual hardware limitations of chipset and board.

Sure, but it's still better to have an opportunity to use an older chipset, instead of being forced into using a newer one.

[Evildeffy]

Not answering my question. Who classified/standardized HEDT and which parameters the does the system has to match to be classified as HEDT? I'm not asking for any official standards, because they dont exist.

I told you literally, when multiple vendors started using the term to define a system that uses properties that a standard consumer won't use (such as more than 20 - 24 PCIe lanes) it become a classification, no longer a branding.
How much more clear do you want me to give you this answer?

Exactly. It was exactly the same way with HTPC: minimum iGPU requirements, best possible CPU and lowest price available.

Don't know what your definition of HTPC is but it's Home Theatre Personal Computer.
The power of a CPU, since AMD and nVidia severely implemented hardware acceleration to Media in their iGPUs, has never been really required.
This is the reason why AMD's Fusion APUs at some point was 20% of all CPUs shipped for several years or do you not remember the horrible Intel Atom failures?
HTPCs never came into, and still aren't by definition, gaming PCs... people may want them to be but they're not and they do not fit that description.

Never as a electronics store shop assistant, and proud of it. Never had any desire to have a job of screwing people over. Had a time of working at a grocery store though.

Nice... working retail is screwing customers over? Yeah... tells me all I need to know.

Ok, so you want to be petty now?

Petty for what? Pointing to the fact you've not been able to read since you tried to argue this very point? Perhaps you should've read what was asked from the beginning?

If you're saying that the mess is a good thing I take my words back. Pretty strange statement though.

Are you actually incapable of comprehending what was written?
Allow me to dumb it down for you:
LGA775 was a mess, the reason for that was the EXTREMELY large range of compatibility and shit between boards and chipsets.
LGA775 needed to cease existing and a new platform should arise to start over cleanly so there wouldn't be any hassle to figure out what was compatible and not.
LGA1156 was born (technically LGA1366 first but that was meant for higher-end use) to wipe the slate clean, this was a good thing.
The problem is that platform changes with every generation is what Intel took too far.

I may not like them changing platforms that often but for LGA775 it was needed.

AMD handled keeping the platform backwards compatible a lot better.

Yeah, very funny. Especially when you have to replace those.

Strange how replacing them was absolutely not a problem for me and they were (though anecdotal but considering the length of time I worked with them quite considerate) far more stable than the pile of junk Pentium 4/D chips and chipsets caused me... oh and the loud amount of fan screaming.
Let's not forget the awesomely cheap plastic handles that kept the CPU coolers in place and how they snapped after 3 - 4 years due to heat because it was cheap plastic.

Well if they did "bribe and threaten" then someone should've been sentenced, right? Or you're making claims that could create you a bunch of problems.

The fact you are unaware of the shit that Intel pulled tells me that you either don't care or are ignoring it.
They were sentenced ... twice ... huge fine as well.

And yes, Intel did indeed have a superior product ever since Conroe CPUs released.

Latter half of the socket era yes they did, prior they did not no.
Athlon XP -> Athlon64 absolutely annihilated anything Pentium based until Core2 ... took quite a while and they pestered AMD out of the market.
This isn't opinion based, these are facts... both Dell and HP especially testified against Intel for this shit.

We just pretend that you didnt write it, because you said that you praised Intel for LGA775 two paragraphs above.

*twitch* Please for the love of my sanity ... read and comprehend.

CPU doesnt have RAM slots. Motherboard doesnt need to have to support multiple memory types (although a lot of motherboards did at the time). Also if your memory controller dies it's much cheaper to replace a motherboard instead of a CPU.

Failing to see the point, as usual.. every RAM change required a different motherboard for Intel because they didn't have IMCs, they didn't implement this till Nehalem.
"Just wanted to sell motherboards" isn't the only reason, it was technical limitations which you stated wasn't true as all of them could support them.
My point is that LGA775 was not as compatible (even remotely as close) as you make it out to be.

So older chipsets on the same socket not supporting newer CPUs is a good thing now?

Now you're just plain trolling right?
You cannot possibly be that dense?

Sure, but it's still better to have an opportunity to use an older chipset, instead of being forced into using a newer one.

Yes I agree... to a point.
Doesn't however change my stated point.

[Thunderball]

I told you literally, when multiple vendors started using the term to define a system that uses properties that a standard consumer won't use (such as more than 20 - 24 PCIe lanes) it become a classification, no longer a branding.
How much more clear do you want me to give you this answer?

Classification means that the thing has properties that singles it from the field of similar things. There is only one thing that does it for HEDT - price. Which in turn has nothing to do with hardware specifications.

Don't know what your definition of HTPC is but it's Home Theatre Personal Computer.
The power of a CPU, since AMD and nVidia severely implemented hardware acceleration to Media in their iGPUs, has never been really required.
This is the reason why AMD's Fusion APUs at some point was 20% of all CPUs shipped for several years or do you not remember the horrible Intel Atom failures?
HTPCs never came into, and still aren't by definition, gaming PCs... people may want them to be but they're not and they do not fit that description.

I remember, but those were ITX/mATX motherboards using build-in processors, often times with SO-DIMM memory. Ever since they moved to netbooks and tablets they've been fine. They just were too slow for HTPC, essentially ultrathin laptop processors, in a desktop motherboard.

Nice... working retail is screwing customers over? Yeah... tells me all I need to know.

Yes, working in computer hardware retail requires you to regularly sell people stuff that they dont want to buy.

Petty for what? Pointing to the fact you've not been able to read since you tried to argue this very point? Perhaps you should've read what was asked from the beginning?

Perhaps I shouldnt have answered a question that was designed to have no right answer.

Are you actually incapable of comprehending what was written?
Allow me to dumb it down for you:
LGA775 was a mess, the reason for that was the EXTREMELY large range of compatibility and shit between boards and chipsets.
LGA775 needed to cease existing and a new platform should arise to start over cleanly so there wouldn't be any hassle to figure out what was compatible and not.
LGA1156 was born (technically LGA1366 first but that was meant for higher-end use) to wipe the slate clean, this was a good thing.
The problem is that platform changes with every generation is what Intel took too far.

I may not like them changing platforms that often but for LGA775 it was needed.

LGA775 is the best thing that Intel ever made. I dont care about compatibility issues, it actually made things fun.

AMD handled keeping the platform backwards compatible a lot better.

So you actually like that Intel does with their mainstream platform right now? Pathetic.

Strange how replacing them was absolutely not a problem for me and they were (though anecdotal but considering the length of time I worked with them quite considerate) far more stable than the pile of junk Pentium 4/D chips and chipsets caused me... oh and the loud amount of fan screaming.

What? Those chips and chipsets never died, werent scorching hot (except for some Nvidia MCPs with integrated video and some SiS chipsets, but those were only there on S478), didnt require active cooling (as most AMD platform chipsets did), had better stock CPU cooling.

Let's not forget the awesomely cheap plastic handles that kept the CPU coolers in place and how they snapped after 3 - 4 years due to heat because it was cheap plastic.

Never heard of them snapping due to heat. I've seen them break due to excessive cooler reinstallations, but those can be easily replaced by taking one out of another cooler. If you want a compatison: S939 and AM2/2+ socket had a plague with their cooler mounting brackets, I've replaced over 100 of them since 2010. Funny enough, I'm waiting for both AM2 cooler brackets and Intel cooler clips order right now =)

Latter half of the socket era yes they did, prior they did not no.
Athlon XP -> Athlon64 absolutely annihilated anything Pentium based until Core2 ... took quite a while and they pestered AMD out of the market.

Yep, no denying that. AMD brought both x86-64 processors and multicore processors on mainstream market, but they been sucking ever since Conroes. I owned both AthlonXPs (Palomino 1800+ and Barton 3200+ later, if I remember correctly) and AthlonFX 4600+.

Failing to see the point, as usual.. every RAM change required a different motherboard for Intel because they didn't have IMCs, they didn't implement this till Nehalem.
"Just wanted to sell motherboards" isn't the only reason, it was technical limitations which you stated wasn't true as all of them could support them.
My point is that LGA775 was not as compatible (even remotely as close) as you make it out to be.

So? RAM slots are on the motherboard anyway. Even if your CPU has an IMC and supports different memory standard that doesnt mean that your platform supports that memory standard now. Example: AM2 platform only supported DDR2 while AM2+ processors (which were, in most cases, fully compatible with AM2 platform) had both DDR2 and DDR3 memory controllers. You still couldnt use DDR3 on AM2 motherboard because there werent any of them because chipset didnt support it.

Support of course was far from perfect, but it's better than making you to buy a new motherboard 1-2 years.

Now you're just plain trolling right?
You cannot possibly be that dense?


Yes I agree... to a point.
Doesn't however change my stated point.

I dont get your point at all then. You dont like the "hot mess" (i.e. complicated compatibility), you also dont like what Intel does currently, but for some reason prefer what AMD did back when LGA775 was current (i.e. exactly what Intel does now with LGA115X).

[Evildeffy]

Classification means that the thing has properties that singles it from the field of similar things. There is only one thing that does it for HEDT - price. Which in turn has nothing to do with hardware specifications.

Price is the only difference? Ok so what's the difference between a Fiat Panda 500 and a Bugatti Veyron?
They're both cars right? Surely then they are both classified as a normal city car? -.-

If you're still not following the analogy then I cannot help you no matter how hard I try.

I remember, but those were ITX/mATX motherboards using build-in processors, often times with SO-DIMM memory. Ever since they moved to netbooks and tablets they've been fine. They just were too slow for HTPC, essentially ultrathin laptop processors, in a desktop motherboard.

Atoms in general were failures and it does not change the fact your statement about HTPCs requiring more CPU horsepower but barely iGPU power is flat out wrong.

Yes, working in computer hardware retail requires you to regularly sell people stuff that they dont want to buy.

Not sure in what kind of shops and in what country you've worked in but no, you don't even remotely have to.

Perhaps I shouldnt have answered a question that was designed to have no right answer.

Perhaps you should never have made incorrect statements to begin with, this entire argument wouldn't have been necessary.

LGA775 is the best thing that Intel ever made. I dont care about compatibility issues, it actually made things fun.

Whether you, personally, care about what kind of mess LGA775 was or not it was killed off for a good reason in case of itself.
LGA775 was a detriment of issues and fragmentation that any user had a hard time discerning what was and what was not able to work with it.

Now let's see how long it takes before you twist things again.

So you actually like what Intel does with their mainstream platform right now? Pathetic.

And there it is, you didn't even last 1 paragraph.... sigh.
Also corrected your spelling since context alters... No I don't like it, as backwards compatibility can be a good thing but there is a limit to it which LGA775 exceeded and it was considerately more convoluted, if they upheld LGA1151 right now and the chipsets as they are ... say the same way AMD does.
Which is keep the socket and base chipset but evolve the chipset to include new features all the while keeping compatibility.

Which is something I know Intel will not do, including the argued about i3 which you're still clinging to.

Recap: LGA775 needed to die, LGA115X was born, backwards compatibility would be good, will not happen because Intel.

What? Those chips and chipsets never died, werent scorching hot (except for some Nvidia MCPs with integrated video and some SiS chipsets, but those were only there on S478), didnt require active cooling (as most AMD platform chipsets did), had better stock CPU cooling.

You may want to turn that the other way around chief...
There's a reason why the Athlon64 bitchslapped Intel at that point and it wasn't just due to performance.
I suggest you look a little bit more into history.

Never heard of them snapping due to heat. I've seen them break due to excessive cooler reinstallations, but those can be easily replaced by taking one out of another cooler. If you want a compatison: S939 and AM2/2+ socket had a plague with their cooler mounting brackets, I've replaced over 100 of them since 2010. Funny enough, I'm waiting for both AM2 cooler brackets and Intel cooler clips order right now =)

Heat fatigue was very common.
Funnily enough I have multiple Socket 939/AM2/2+/3/3+ brackets here not breaking whatsoever in comparison to the old mechanism employed by Intel.
(Pick one up from me, I have plenty to spare since I never use stock coolers anyway, but the literal thousands of OEM PCs I handled have)
Funnily enough I've also had to replace the feet off of the Intel stock coolers because those as well snapped off from heat fatigue.

It's one of the bigger complaints of that platform ever since LGA775 and funnily enough the older stock coolers were actually better than the garbage you get now.

Yep, no denying that. AMD brought both x86-64 processors and multicore processors on mainstream market, but they been sucking ever since Conroes. I owned both AthlonXPs (Palomino 1800+ and Barton 3200+ later, if I remember correctly) and AthlonFX 4600+.

Yes now think back as to HOW Intel did it... you wanted someone sentenced for it right? Like I said... twice.

So? RAM slots are on the motherboard anyway. Even if your CPU has an IMC and supports different memory standard that doesnt mean that your platform supports that memory standard now. Example: AM2 platform only supported DDR2 while AM2+ processors (which were, in most cases, fully compatible with AM2 platform) had both DDR2 and DDR3 memory controllers. You still couldnt use DDR3 on AM2 motherboard because there werent any of them because chipset didnt support it.

Support of course was far from perfect, but it's better than making you to buy a new motherboard 1-2 years.

Yes it is but again you fail to see the point yet again, not everything is compatible on Intel's side, not everything was interchangeable in LGA775, it was a hot piping mess of crap and it needed to die and wiped off to start over then.
Ah fuck it.. I've repeated this enough and stated more above... if you still don't get it then I can't help you.

I dont get your point at all then. You dont like the "hot mess" (i.e. complicated compatibility), you also dont like what Intel does currently, but for some reason prefer what AMD did back when LGA775 was current (i.e. exactly what Intel does now with LGA115X).

I recommend you read through it all again because I'm tired of repeating myself.
Coffee Lake will require 300 series motherboards, not just i5/i7 but also the i3, Pentiums and Celerons (if there are any), no amount of praying will change that, unless Intel has a last millisecond change of heart and allows backwards compatibility with 100/200 series motherboards.
It's either All or Nothing for them.

[Thunderball]

Price is the only difference? Ok so what's the difference between a Fiat Panda 500 and a Bugatti Veyron?
They're both cars right? Surely then they are both classified as a normal city car? -.-

If you're still not following the analogy then I cannot help you no matter how hard I try.

Just answer the question. You can pretty easily classify those cars using a couple of parameters (Fiat: mini hatchback, 100 hp; Bugatti: sport coupe, 1000 hp) or just flat out standardized classifications (A-segment car and S-segment car), most people who would want you to understand which car their are talking about would name similar set of parameters. You just cannot do the same with HEDT PCs.

Atoms in general were failures and it does not change the fact your statement about HTPCs requiring more CPU horsepower but barely iGPU power is flat out wrong.

You've said yourself that HTPC are not gaming PCs, so why do you need more iGPU power if you can play any video without dropping frames? The fact that GPU encoding is enabled on iGPUs doesnt mean that CPU part is chilling.

Not sure in what kind of shops and in what country you've worked in but no, you don't even remotely have to.

Have you ever worked at a computer hardware retailer? Something that has at least a region-wide network. Honest answer please.

Perhaps you should never have made incorrect statements to begin with, this entire argument wouldn't have been necessary.

Never made any in this conversation. Unlike you.

Whether you, personally, care about what kind of mess LGA775 was or not it was killed off for a good reason in case of itself.
LGA775 was a detriment of issues and fragmentation that any user had a hard time discerning what was and what was not able to work with it.

If you're not tech savvy and not looking into CPU support list you wont have any idea what is compatible with what anyway. If you are tech savvy you know perfectly fine what you need to do.

And there it is, you didn't even last 1 paragraph.... sigh.
Also corrected your spelling since context alters... No I don't like it, as backwards compatibility can be a good thing but there is a limit to it which LGA775 exceeded and it was considerately more convoluted, if they upheld LGA1151 right now and the chipsets as they are ... say the same way AMD does.
Which is keep the socket and base chipset but evolve the chipset to include new features all the while keeping compatibility.

We are already past what AMD does with their chipsets on S1151. Two series of chipsets have been released already.

Which is something I know Intel will not do, including the argued about i3 which you're still clinging to.

Recap: LGA775 needed to die, LGA115X was born, backwards compatibility would be good, will not happen because Intel.

Right, because Intel is evil. That's the magnitude of arguments that is coming out of you so far. It was done before, I dont see why it wouldnt be done again. I'm not counting on it happening, but in the case of it happening we would get some very interesting possibilities.

You may want to turn that the other way around chief...
There's a reason why the Athlon64 bitchslapped Intel at that point and it wasn't just due to performance.
I suggest you look a little bit more into history.

Performance only, actually. NetBurst was crap, and Intel held to it for too long.

(Pick one up from me, I have plenty to spare since I never use stock coolers anyway, but the literal thousands of OEM PCs I handled have)

Thanks, but getting it from you would take longer imo. Almost all of the aftermarket coolers used the same clips, including a couple of early CM Hypers that I had for my own PC.

Funnily enough I've also had to replace the feet off of the Intel stock coolers because those as well snapped off from heat fatigue.

Overclocked Pentium Ds? That's literally the only case I would imagine it happening.

It's one of the bigger complaints of that platform ever since LGA775 and funnily enough the older stock coolers were actually better than the garbage you get now.

S478 stock coolers were horrible, both retention mechanism and efficiency, LGA775 stock coolers were pretty good.

Yes now think back as to HOW Intel did it... you wanted someone sentenced for it right? Like I said... twice.

So links please? I only remember them getting a pretty hefty fine in Europe, and that was back when AMD actually had better processors.

Yes it is but again you fail to see the point yet again, not everything is compatible on Intel's side, not everything was interchangeable in LGA775, it was a hot piping mess of crap and it needed to die and wiped off to start over then.
Ah fuck it.. I've repeated this enough and stated more above... if you still don't get it then I can't help you.

Noone ever talked about everything. You wanted examples when Intel's new chipsets retained compatibility for low end segment, and apparently that example doesnt fit because the CPUs are not called i7/i5/i3.

I recommend you read through it all again because I'm tired of repeating myself.
Coffee Lake will require 300 series motherboards, not just i5/i7 but also the i3, Pentiums and Celerons (if there are any), no amount of praying will change that, unless Intel has a last millisecond change of heart and allows backwards compatibility with 100/200 series motherboards.
It's either All or Nothing for them.

Again, I'm not looking to validate your soothsaying abilities, I'm looking for an argumented discussion. So far you havent been able to provide any arguments. Please just dont reply if you're unable to do so.

[Evildeffy]

Just answer the question. You can pretty easily classify those cars using a couple of parameters (Fiat: mini hatchback, 100 hp; Bugatti: sport coupe, 1000 hp) or just flat out standardized classifications (A-segment car and S-segment car), most people who would want you to understand which car their are talking about would name similar set of parameters. You just cannot do the same with HEDT PCs.

Higher Core Count, Increased Memory Bandwidth, Increased PCIe bandwidth (among others) for 10Gb ethernet, higher validation standards (actual raid cards), etc. etc.
Just to name a few... or are these all part of the consumer experience?

You've said yourself that HTPC are not gaming PCs, so why do you need more iGPU power if you can play any video without dropping frames? The fact that GPU encoding is enabled on iGPUs doesnt mean that CPU part is chilling.

No but having a more capable iGPU to accelerate media, the main use of a Home Theater Personal Computer, means your CPU doesn't need to be as powerful.
The point of a HTPC is as low power and silent as possible, Atoms had issues with high res video playback, AMD Fusion APUs did not, not to mention the APU was actually more power efficient as well.
However from your comments it's pretty clear you've never had experience with this otherwise you wouldn't even have remotely suggested what you did.

Have you ever worked at a computer hardware retailer? Something that has at least a region-wide network. Honest answer please.

I have, I even ran a store, I've even worked with and have contacts with the actual direct suppliers, just because you work retail doesn't mean you're selling everything that people don't need, that's honestly such a load of crap it's unreal.
Doesn't mean it's not out there but that's literally like saying that every person in your neighbourhood is out to get you somehow, it's retarded.

Never made any in this conversation. Unlike you.

Keep telling yourself that to make yourself feel better, doesn't change the fact it's false.

If you're not tech savvy and not looking into CPU support list you wont have any idea what is compatible with what anyway. If you are tech savvy you know perfectly fine what you need to do.

So only the tech savvy people buy PCs? Good to know, the rest buys Mac right?(!)

We are already past what AMD does with their chipsets on S1151. Two series of chipsets have been released already.

You're saying LGA1151 is already more backwards compatible than what AMD has had so far? You may deffo need to research that again.

Right, because Intel is evil. That's the magnitude of arguments that is coming out of you so far. It was done before, I dont see why it wouldnt be done again. I'm not counting on it happening, but in the case of it happening we would get some very interesting possibilities.

No I've not stated Intel is evil, I'm stating Intel is greedy, big difference.
And no, by your own admissions you're counting and assuming on it being backwards compatible and now you're not... realized the folly of your ways?
I've told you the logical reasons, you choose to reject them "Because I wanna".... big difference.

Performance only, actually. NetBurst was crap, and Intel held to it for too long.

Nope, try again... this time look into heat generated for the CPUs, chipset stability etc, Intel was down on all fronts, Pentium 4/D was a nightmare for them.
The only advantage Intel had back then was an actual working Thermal Trottle. (Tom's Hardware Video was funny)

Overclocked Pentium Ds? That's literally the only case I would imagine it happening.

Have you never worked with Prescott or Northwood CPUs? Plenty of those, Willamette less so due to lower speeds.
All stock, none overclocked... very common.

S478 stock coolers were horrible, both retention mechanism and efficiency, LGA775 stock coolers were pretty good.

Like I said... LGA775 stock coolers are actually better than the garbage you get now, the feet were still weak however and snapped off after a few years.
Easiest and cheapest was to replace them with a Cooler Master TX1/2/3 which was a tower cooler that used the same system, world of difference in sound production.

So links please? I only remember them getting a pretty hefty fine in Europe, and that was back when AMD actually had better processors.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...-with-AMD.html
Quick Google, technically not a sentence but forced settlement by US courts, same principle.
Quick note: Last I checked Intel still hasn't paid AMD this amount.

Noone ever talked about everything. You wanted examples when Intel's new chipsets retained compatibility for low end segment, and apparently that example doesnt fit because the CPUs are not called i7/i5/i3.

Ok so when you go to a bar and you ask the bartender for a Heineken beer and he/she brings back a Budweiser... are you going to say "Yeah that's what I asked for!" instead of "I asked for Heineken!"?
If you just look @ LGA775 and it's mess and how Intel has handled every platform later, all following the same pattern, why would you assume they would deviate from the norm for the lower end only specifically now?
And you most certainly stated, in the beginning, all were compatible between FSBs, why the crawl-back now?

Again, I'm not looking to validate your soothsaying abilities, I'm looking for an argumented discussion. So far you havent been able to provide any arguments. Please just dont reply if you're unable to do so.

I have... the difference is you choose to ignore logic even when explained to you, I cannot help you further if you cannot/will not put effort into comprehension.

[Life-Binder]

https://www.techpowerup.com/236550/i...hmarks-surface

Intel Core i7-8700K and i5-8400 SANDRA Benchmarks Surface


Ahead of their launch later this quarter, SiSoft SANDRA benchmarks of Intel 8th generation Core i7-8700K and Core i5-8400 six-core processors surfaced in benchmark databases, which were promptly compared to their predecessors by HotHardware. The results put to the test Intel's claims of "over 40 percent more performance" compared to the 7th generation Core processors, which the company made in its 8th Generation Core Launch Event presentation. A bulk of these performance increases are attributed to the increasing core-count over generation, which directly yields higher multi-threaded performance; while a small but significant portion of it is attributed to increases in single-threaded performance. Since the "Coffee Lake" micro-architecture is essentially a refresh of the "Skylake" architecture, single-threaded performance increases could be attributed to higher clock speeds.

The Core i7-8700K is the top-dog of the 8th generation Core mainstream-desktop processor family. This six-core chip was compared to the product it succeeds in Intel's MSDT product-stack, the quad-core Core i7-7700K. There is a 45 percent increase in performance, in the "processor arithmetic" test; and a 47 percent increase in the "processor multimedia" test. These two test-suites are multi-threaded, and hence benefit from the two added cores, which in turn add four additional logical CPUs, thanks to HyperThreading. "Processor cryptography" sees a 12 percent increase. The single-precision and double-precision "Scientific Analysis" tests, which again are multi-threaded, see 26 percent and 32 percent performance gains over the i7-7700K, respectively.

[Enfilade]

https://www.techpowerup.com/236550/i...hmarks-surface

Aaaaaaand AMD is relegated back to obsolesence. Thank you, Intel, for always pushing the future forward!

[KingSapmi]

Aaaaaaand AMD is relegated back to obsolesence. Thank you, Intel, for always pushing the future forward!

You really wish that to happen? I mean, sure, good for Intel to be pushing forward innovation and and making great products, but having monopoly on anything ain't good for consumers. Why can't a market thrive by having two options? I can never understand that train of thought.