> Because insane overclocks are the entire fucking point of SNB[1] if you already have > a Wolfdale (if you have a Merom/Conroe era C2D, the per-clock improvement actually > does start to get interesting, and if you have a P4, run don't walk to upgrade). If > you're going to run it stock, then yes, you can assume performance about 5% better > than a same-clocked Wolfdale on software not using the new AVX instructions (which > will be nearly everything for another 12 months while the compiler guys get going). > But at that point you've spent a lot of money for mostly a lot of nothing.
That is very interesting. So could I then conclude that Intel is selling their Sandy Bridge chips at an artificially low clock rate because they don't have any competition that would force them to sell them closer to their potential speed? Meaning that if AMD was more competitive, Intel could just as easily sell these chips for the current price at higher clock rates as they can sell them now for the same price at lower clock rates?
If so, it only underscores the value of AMD in the x86 marketplace. We can all just pray that Bulldozer is competitive.
Or - is there another alternative - which is that in order to achieve these 'insane' Sandy Bridge overclocks you have to use either a very expensive cooling solution, or a very loud one, or both, which thus prevents Intel from selling these things at such high clock rates?
Index 
Flat 
Re: How about a clock for clock comparison.
Reply
