Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [vr-zone]Additional details on Intel's Z68 and Patsburg models
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[vr-zone]Additional details on Intel's Z68 and Patsburg models - Page 3

post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
Any reason for quad channel vs triple channel when triple doesn't even offer an advantage over dual when gaming? Neither does 2200Mhz vs 1600.
Gaming is one of the last things they consider when designing new cpus/chipsets. There are a lot of reasons people would want more memory bandwith or higher ram speed. You really can't be serious? How about compressing/decompressing archives, encoding video/audio, folding, rendering... There are a TON of reasons why, sorry I find it annoying when people ask trollish questions but try and act like they were being serious. I'm getting so tired of seeing it on OCN and I wish they would go to invite only for new members. Back on topic though, ram speed alone will give you all around better responsiveness from your operating sytem. Glad to see technology moving forward, I get excited thinking about what we will have a year from now
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspeedracer View Post
Gaming is one of the last things they consider when designing new cpus/chipsets.
Too bad it's the first thing they show off when new motherboards or CPUs are released. You really have no idea why computers have kept increasing in speed for the past 40+ years do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jspeedracer View Post
There are a lot of reasons people would want more memory bandwith or higher ram speed. You really can't be serious? How about compressing/decompressing archives, encoding video/audio, folding, rendering...
1-2% increase going from dual to triple channel memory on those exact scenarios is exactly why it's just as pointless going from triple to quad. Synthetic benchmarks are the only area you see benefit. You might save 10 minutes on a 48 hour render but you'll never notice it.
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icekilla View Post
I don't get something... If Apple managed to integrate Thunderbolt into a Sandy Bridge platform, why is Intel not adding it to X68? How hard could it be to get Thunderbolt in a LGA2011 motherboard? Is there any chance Manufacturers like Asus or EVGA will add this feature?
Is that what we're calling it now, "Thunderbolt"? Isn't that just "Lightpeak" for Apple sheep?
post #24 of 27
No that's actually a partial Lightpeak. For now they will release the interface using an electrical signal. Some time around 2012 they will migrate Thunderbolt to Lightpeak. If I understood properly, the transition won't have any impact on already existing device. The optical converter will be included within the cable, so the signal any device receives will always be electrical.
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkdiablo View Post
No that's actually a partial Lightpeak. For now they will release the interface using an electrical signal. Some time around 2012 they will migrate Thunderbolt to Lightpeak. If I understood properly, the transition won't have any impact on already existing device. The optical converter will be included within the cable, so the signal any device receives will always be electrical.
Weird, that seems like it would drive the price of cables up, which is not a good thing, in my opinion-- both for the propagation of LightPeak as an interface, and for my own use of the interface.
For sale
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-920 Asus P6T Deluxe Asus GTX460 TOP 768mb G Skill ECO 1600 CAS7 1.35V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x Vertex 60 GB raid[0] Asus DVDRW W7,Ubuntu 2 xAsus VH236H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse Pad
Razer Ultra X3 1000W HAF 932 My Desk 
  hide details  
Reply
For sale
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-920 Asus P6T Deluxe Asus GTX460 TOP 768mb G Skill ECO 1600 CAS7 1.35V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x Vertex 60 GB raid[0] Asus DVDRW W7,Ubuntu 2 xAsus VH236H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse Pad
Razer Ultra X3 1000W HAF 932 My Desk 
  hide details  
Reply
post #26 of 27
It will surely drive up the cable's price, but I think I read in some of Lightpeak's preview that Intel had developped a cheap converter that is pretty simple. If I'm correct, you'll see a 1 or 2 dollar premium on the optical cables with converter as opposed to plain optical cables.
post #27 of 27
Ahh Why don't they support light peak?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [vr-zone]Additional details on Intel's Z68 and Patsburg models