[Oficial] Intel Core "all" Series

[MTPS]

Só é lixado para quem não dá valor à carteira.

Racionalmente, a melhor aposta é ficar quieto ou apostar em cpu´s low-budget aka i5 2500k/3570k ou FX´s.

[LPC]

Só é lixado para quem não dá valor à carteira.

Racionalmente, a melhor aposta é ficar quieto ou apostar em cpu´s low-budget aka i5 2500k/3570k ou FX´s.

Boas!
Ou então X99, que não vai mexer até 2016...

Cumprimentos,

LPC

[MAXLD]

Ou então X99, que não vai mexer até 2016...

Racionalidade não se define em pagar por cpus e boards "premium" novas e DDR4 recém-chegadas a preço de ouro...

"stop trying to make your waste of money justifiable..."

[LPC]

Racionalidade não se define em pagar por cpus e boards "premium" novas e DDR4 recém-chegadas a preço de ouro...

"stop trying to make your waste of money justifiable..."

Boas!
Esta plataforma está estável e assim o ficará até a 2016.

Agora o que vem por ai é um autentico caos de cpus, sockets e boards...

Cumprimentos,

LPC

PS: Eu não preciso de justificar nada... gosto e compro... ninguem é obrigado a seguir-me... (mas se o fizerem serão espertos claro está!).

[Minion]

seus irracionais xD

[jotinha17]

Claro LPC, nós já sabemos

[MAXLD]

Esta plataforma está estável e assim o ficará até a 2016.

Até 2016 é so mais um ano, qualquer setup (actual ou anterior) é 100% viável até lá... incluindo o AMD que tinhas.

(mas se o fizerem serão espertos claro está!)

[tiran]

PS: Eu não preciso de justificar nada... gosto e compro... ninguem é obrigado a seguir-me... (mas se o fizerem serão espertos claro está!).

E não esquecer de subscrever os teus classificados...

[MTPS]

Boas!
Ou então X99, que não vai mexer até 2016...

Cumprimentos,

LPC

Quem tiver orçamento para investir, X99 começa a ser melhor aposta que 1155 topo.

[JayDz]

Hell no!

A melhor plataforma é a 2500k/2600k, baratuxos, e que nada ou pouco muda para os recentes

Enviado do meu ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 7041X através de Tapatalk

[Viriat0]

Hell no!

A melhor plataforma é a 2500k/2600k, baratuxos, e que nada ou pouco muda para os recentes

Enviado do meu ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 7041X através de Tapatalk

Isso e as BOARD! Devem estar a chegar novas Boards ai na Areosa!!

[Jorge-Vieira]

Parece que não vai haver mais novidades da Intel este ano.

Intel's release schedules have been slowing down, unfortunately in a large part that is due to the fact that the only competition they face in certain market segments is themselves. For high end servers it looks like we won't see Haswell-EX or EP4S until the second half of next year and Skylake chips for entry level servers until after the third quarter. Intel does have to fight for their share of the SoC and low powered chips, DigiTimes reports the Broadwell-DE family and the C2750 and C2350 should be here in the second quarter which gives AMD and ARM a chance to gain market share against Intel's current offerings. Along with the arrival of the new chips we will also see older models from Itanium, Xeon, Xeon Phi and Atom be discontinued; some may be gone before the end of the year. You have already heard the bad news about Broadwell-E.

"Intel's next-generation server processors for 2015 including new Haswell-EX (Xeon E7 v3 series) and -EP4S (Xeon E5-4600 v3 series), are scheduled to be released in the second quarter of 2015, giving clients more time to transition to the new platform, according to industry sources."

http://www.pcper.com/

[Jorge-Vieira]

Intel Broadwell, 14nm confirmados.

The first sampling of Intel Broadwell processors arrived a few days ago in the form of Core M SoC in Lenovo’s Yoga 3 Pro Ultrabook. Though initial reviews of the same are somewhat disappointing, since our sample size is very limited, it would be a fallacy to pin the blame on Intel’s part. Atleast, not until more samples arrive (and provided they perform just as ‘average’). In the meantime however, the well known reverse engineering publication Chip Works has released its analysis of Broadwell.

Intel’s 14nm ‘True 14nm’ – Physical Distance Matches with Intel’s Claimed Measurements

The ‘true xx nm’ debate has started quite recently or rather entered the spotlight recently. The question arises usually when discussing and comparing other nodes with Intel, an obvious example being TSMC. One of the primary reasons actual distance matters so much is because it is the single most important factor in determining Moore’s law. You can employ engineering tricks to double the performance without actually doubling transistor count but then the essence of the law is somewhat lost. Although consumers won’t actually care about whether some thing is a true process or not as long as it delivers results.

Anyways, the folks over at Chipworks applied bevel polish to a bare die and analyzed the chip. The first thing they measured was the Transistor Gate Pitch which is more or less the distance between two gates. Since at this level of magnification you work on reference points, the approximate distance between a handful of gates is noted and divided to get the physical pitch (699/10). As you can see, the number ’70nm’ corresponds to the forecast by Intel in their original slides. The only anomaly they noted is the interconnect pitch, which measures 54mm on the reverse scale. This measurement is quoted by Intel as being 52mm. Chipworks notes that this could be due to a sampling error or a measurement error as well. Now, some of the stuff they mention is frankly above my pay grade so you would do well to read the full analysis on their page. Note however, that the full technical analysis has yet to be revealed and you will need to cough up cash for that.

Read more: http://wccftech.com/intels-14nm-broa...#ixzz3HTlaU7Xe

[Jorge-Vieira]

Intel Xeon com 18 cores baseado na arquitetra Haswell-EX

Last February, Intel launched the Xeon E7 v2 line of CPUs. Based on the Ivy Bridge architecture, they replaced the original Xeon E7s, developed from Sandy Bridge, that were released in April 2011. Intel is now planning to release Haswell-EX in the second quarter of 2015. No specific SKUs are listed, this information describes the product family as a whole.

This is Ivy Bridge-EX. Haswell-EX will have 3 extra cores (and look a bit different).

To set the tone, these are not small chips. Using the previous generation as an example, Ivy Bridge-EX was over twice the size (surface area) of Ivy Bridge-E, and it contained over twice the number of transistors. While Ivy Bridge-EX was available with up to 15 physical cores per processor, double that with HyperThreading, Haswell-EX is increasing that to 18, or 36 simultaneous threads with HyperThreading. If that is not enough cores, then you can pick up an eight-socket motherboard and load it up with multiple of these.
Other than their gigantic size, these chips are fairly similar to the Xeon E5 processors that are based on Haswell-E. If you need eighteen cores per package, and can spare several thousand dollars per processor, you should be able to give someone your money in just a handful of months.

http://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/Eighteen-core-Xeon-E7-v3-Based-Haswell-EX-Q215

[Jorge-Vieira]

Intel settles Pentium 4 benchmark fudging suit

A long-running lawsuit against Intel which accused the company of massaging the performance figures for its Pentium 4 CPUs has come to a head, resulting in US customers receiving a partial rebate of $15 by way of compensation.

The launch of the Pentium 4 was a pivotal moment for Intel. The processor was based on a fundamentally new microarchitecture dubbed NetBurst, internally known as P68 and designed to replace the ageing P6 microarchitecture used from the introduction of the Pentium Pro through to the Pentium III. Compared to its 10-stage predecessor, NetBurst featured a 20-stage pipeline dubbed Hyper Pipeline Technology, increasing to 31 stages with the Prescott implementation. This allowed Intel to hit higher clock speeds, but at the cost of a loss in instructions per cycle (IPC). Coupled with double-pumped arithmetic and logic units (ALUs) and a slower dedicated shift/rotate execution unit, the result was an architecture that was easily outperformed by its predecessor - and, worse, chips from Intel's main rival AMD - at equivalent clock speeds.

The goal behind NetBurst was to create an architecture that would scale to clock frequencies as high as 10GHz, speeds at which the raw throughput of the chips would more than compensate for its decreased IPC. Sadly, things didn't work out that way: rather than 10GHz, Intel barely made it to 3.8GHz before the power required and the heat generated by the chips became unmanageable. For its next-generation Pentium M mobile processors, the company would abandon NetBurst and return to the P6 microarchitecture before ditching NetBurst altogether and creating a more P6-inspired microarchitecture, still in use today, dubbed Core.

In short: the Pentium 4 was a colossal and costly mistake for Intel. A class action suit brought against Intel and HP claimed that the companies knew from the outset that the Pentium 4 was too slow and ran too hot, and that the companies collaborated on customised benchmarks - WebMark 2001 and SYSmark 2001 - which would concentrate on the things the chip was good at to paint a far rosier picture of its performance compared to the previous generation Pentium III processors which it replaced.

The Register was the first to notice that said case has finally concluded and found in the favour of the class, with the result that Intel is being forced to refund any customers who bought a Pentium 4 PC between the 20th of November 2000 and the 30th of June 2002. No receipt is required to claim, but before you get too excited be aware that the class is exclusively open to residents of US states bar Illinois and will result in a not-exactly-massive $15 payout.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...4-benchmarks/1