Sandy Bridge cpu question

[kfitzenreiter]

Does anyone out there know if there is any truth to the idea that a Core i5 (1155) is really just a hobbled version of a Core i7 (1155)? In other words Intel creates a flagship version, in this case the 1155 Core i7 and then simply disables some features to create Core i5s, Core i3s and soon sandy bridge versions of Pentiums and even Celerons.

I tried "chatting" with intel technical support and got nowhere. ( I wonder why???)

Any thoughts?

I'm not necessarily seeking an "exact answer," but the field above can't be changed.

 

[cbrunnem]

I don't want the cpu for free. I'm just saying basically leave the damn thing unlocked. If they sell it as stable at 2.9 Ghz and I try to run it at 3.3 Ghz and it turns out that it is unstable at that speed well then that is my tough luck, but let me try. That's all I'm saying.

thats uneconomical for them. then everyone would buy the cheaper unlocked ones and intel would loose out on money not to mention everyone that over did it on there overclockes would be calling and bitch and not to mention that probably not what dell or hp want. they want choices to put in different levels of computers

 

[palladin9479]

I don't want the cpu for free. I'm just saying basically leave the damn thing unlocked. If they sell it as stable at 2.9 Ghz and I try to run it at 3.3 Ghz and it turns out that it is unstable at that speed well then that is my tough luck, but let me try. That's all I'm saying.

So you want a 3.3Ghz CPU for the price of a 2.9Ghz CPU, that is exactly what your saying. If they leave it unlocked two things will happen. One unscrupulous OEM's will "up clock" the CPU and put it in their models as standard practice, this was done before during the days of the Pentium MMX and K5/6. They went as far as to require all BIOS's to display the CPU's reported clock rate / model # before displaying the actual clock rate. And two the "overclock-ability" of the CPU will become a standard feature, people will start making purchasing decisions based on what they ~think~ they can get the speed at vs what its rated for, this will create an increase in warranty work and RMA's. Bus locking limits the amount of damage you can do to a CPU, changing the actual multiplier can fry your CPU as you try to add another 1+Ghz onto it.

Ontop of that, Intel and AMD both create a "unlocked" performance CPU for overclockers. I happen to have a Phenom II X4 940BE clocked @3.5Ghz in my rig (3.6 was creating random unstable behavior sometimes). Some people get lucky and can get 3.8Ghz out of this CPU, if this was a standard CPU I could be left feeling like I somehow "lost" performance. Overclocking is running your HW outside of manufacture specifications, its not recommended unless you know exactly what your doing and don't mind burning something out or blowing something up. If you want to OC then buy an OC CPU, otherwise stop b1tching about not getting your free lunch.

 

[kfitzenreiter]

I don't want the cpu for free. I'm just saying basically leave the damn thing unlocked. If they sell it as stable at 2.9 Ghz and I try to run it at 3.3 Ghz and it turns out that it is unstable at that speed well then that is my tough luck, but let me try. That's all I'm saying.

So you want a 3.3Ghz CPU for the price of a 2.9Ghz CPU, that is exactly what your saying. If they leave it unlocked two things will happen. One unscrupulous OEM's will "up clock" the CPU and put it in their models as standard practice, this was done before during the days of the Pentium MMX and K5/6. They went as far as to require all BIOS's to display the CPU's reported clock rate / model # before displaying the actual clock rate. And two the "overclock-ability" of the CPU will become a standard feature, people will start making purchasing decisions based on what they ~think~ they can get the speed at vs what its rated for, this will create an increase in warranty work and RMA's. Bus locking limits the amount of damage you can do to a CPU, changing the actual multiplier can fry your CPU as you try to add another 1+Ghz onto it.

Ontop of that, Intel and AMD both create a "unlocked" performance CPU for overclockers. I happen to have a Phenom II X4 940BE clocked @3.5Ghz in my rig (3.6 was creating random unstable behavior sometimes). Some people get lucky and can get 3.8Ghz out of this CPU, if this was a standard CPU I could be left feeling like I somehow "lost" performance. Overclocking is running your HW outside of manufacture specifications, its not recommended unless you know exactly what your doing and don't mind burning something out or blowing something up. If you want to OC then buy an OC CPU, otherwise stop b1tching about not getting your free lunch.

It's NOT a free lunch. Some of the CPUs will be stable at a higher speed and many won't be stable. All I'm saying is LET ME TRY. A large OEM will not try to overclock the chips if too many of them are unstable. It would result in too many support calls to their help desks. From what you are saying then, is it also not proper to overclock by virtue of the system clock???