Should an Intel CPU only be used with an Intel chipset...

[Mike L]

I just wanted to hear everyone's views and opinions on the subject
I'm kind of undecided on the question myself. On one hand, I'v
always preferred to have an Intel CPU paired up with an Inte
chipset. They both come from the same company, hence the fact tha
they'll know what works and what doesn't. I've always like Inte
chipsets, as I find them to be very stable, and quite fast. On th
other hand, Nvidia just released their nForce 590 SLI Intel Editio
chipset, and I'm seriously craving some Quad SLI. In some cases
memory thoroughput, and overall latency issues are much better on th
nForce chipset compared to Intel's own. Well, I guess it just depend
on what you're looking for, right? Ok, so let's discuss.. :

 

[Mark]

I just wanted to hear everyone's views and opinions on the subject.
I'm kind of undecided on the question myself. On one hand, I've
always preferred to have an Intel CPU paired up with an Intel
chipset. They both come from the same company, hence the fact that
they'll know what works and what doesn't. I've always like Intel
chipsets, as I find them to be very stable, and quite fast. On the
other hand, Nvidia just released their nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition
chipset, and I'm seriously craving some Quad SLI. In some cases,
memory thoroughput, and overall latency issues are much better on the
nForce chipset compared to Intel's own. Well, I guess it just depends
on what you're looking for, right? Ok, so let's discuss..

Your question is a good one. Probably the best way is to wait for the
hardware review sites to review the different motherboard chipsets - but
this isn't going to happen until the NDA over conroe itself lapses. Since a
lot of people would like to know the answer to your question, let's hope
they specifically examine the issue of "Performance and stability of
different motherboard chipsets with Conroe".

 

[David Kanter]

I just wanted to hear everyone's views and opinions on the subject.
I'm kind of undecided on the question myself. On one hand, I've
always preferred to have an Intel CPU paired up with an Intel
chipset. They both come from the same company, hence the fact that
they'll know what works and what doesn't. I've always like Intel
chipsets, as I find them to be very stable, and quite fast. On the
other hand, Nvidia just released their nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition
chipset, and I'm seriously craving some Quad SLI.

Why? Quad SLI doesn't really have much in the way of benefits
according to most tests. Also, do you really want to get a 1000W PSU?

In some cases,
memory thoroughput, and overall latency issues are much better on the
nForce chipset compared to Intel's own. Well, I guess it just depends
on what you're looking for, right? Ok, so let's discuss..

I don't think it matters too much, Intel has great chipsets, and
NVIDIAs are pretty good. Ultimately, if you want SLI (which is
reasonable, although Quad sli is a waste of money and energy) then you
can use either...get a GX2 from NV or xfire from ATi.

Bottom line: Unless there is a big performance difference, I'd go with
the one that is cheaper and has more features you want. I don't think
Quad SLI is really a feature, but it's your money...

DK

 

[Del Cecchi]

I just wanted to hear everyone's views and opinions on the subject.
I'm kind of undecided on the question myself. On one hand, I've
always preferred to have an Intel CPU paired up with an Intel
chipset. They both come from the same company, hence the fact that
they'll know what works and what doesn't. I've always like Intel
chipsets, as I find them to be very stable, and quite fast. On the
other hand, Nvidia just released their nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition
chipset, and I'm seriously craving some Quad SLI. In some cases,
memory thoroughput, and overall latency issues are much better on the
nForce chipset compared to Intel's own. Well, I guess it just depends
on what you're looking for, right? Ok, so let's discuss..

Of course not. IBM's chip sets are much better. Unfortunately they are
targetted at high end servers.

 

[Tony Hill]

I just wanted to hear everyone's views and opinions on the subject.
I'm kind of undecided on the question myself. On one hand, I've
always preferred to have an Intel CPU paired up with an Intel
chipset. They both come from the same company, hence the fact that
they'll know what works and what doesn't. I've always like Intel
chipsets, as I find them to be very stable, and quite fast. On the
other hand, Nvidia just released their nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition
chipset, and I'm seriously craving some Quad SLI. In some cases,
memory thoroughput, and overall latency issues are much better on the
nForce chipset compared to Intel's own. Well, I guess it just depends
on what you're looking for, right? Ok, so let's discuss..

As always, the best answer is "Maybe" :>

2 years ago, we could probably have just said "yes and been done with
it, but then again, 2 years ago you would have had to have rocks in
your head to buy an Intel processor anyway, so it didn't really
matter. Now though, things are a bit different.

As a general rule, I would still tend to stick with Intel chips for
most cases, but there are a few exceptions. First, as you hinted at,
there is the SLI option in nVidia chipsets for gamers with more money
then they know what to do with. Second are those looking for
integrated graphics capable of playing the occasional, slightly older
game, where nVidia and ATI still maintain a performance advantage over
Intel. Third are those looking for a high-end server, where IBM's
chipsets are probably the best choice (albeit not cheap). And finally
there is also a (very) small niche for those looking for a really
low-cost system, where an SiS or VIA chipset might make sense (though
an AMD processor would make more sense).

Ohh, and as a bit of a side-note, I think you'll find that the *HUGE*
cost of Quad SLI really doesn't make any sense at all. The $1100 or
so that you'll pay for such a configuration will only really help in
VERY extreme situations and the performance will be matched by a $250
card next year.

 

[NilEinne]

I just wanted to hear everyone's views and opinions on the subject.
I'm kind of undecided on the question myself. On one hand, I've
always preferred to have an Intel CPU paired up with an Intel
chipset. They both come from the same company, hence the fact that
they'll know what works and what doesn't. I've always like Intel
chipsets, as I find them to be very stable, and quite fast. On the
other hand, Nvidia just released their nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition
chipset, and I'm seriously craving some Quad SLI. In some cases,
memory thoroughput, and overall latency issues are much better on the
nForce chipset compared to Intel's own. Well, I guess it just depends
on what you're looking for, right? Ok, so let's discuss..

Wait aren't you the guy who said this

Cache and/or cache size can make a considerable amount of difference
depending on how it was designed to be optimized/used. Take Conroe
for example, 4MB of L2 cache.. *shared*; which is the way it should
be if you're running a dual core CPU. That amount of cache size can
either be very rewarding in some applications, or extremely
detremental to your performance. The larger the amount of cache size
can be beneficial if say for instance the whole program can fit
inside of it (i.e benchmarking programs, threads, instructions etc.).
But, with a larger cache, you're more likely to have a cache miss/hit,
which would then end up in wasting valuable clock cycles searching
your memory for the information that it needed; if it isn't already
gone by then

I just find it interesting that you claim to know so much about CPU
design and cache in particular but don't really appear to know much
about chipsets for Intel's Conroe, none of which have been properly
publicly reviewed & tested anyway due to the NDA.

And no, before the accusations fly I haven't been chasing you. I was
looking at the post about inverse hyperthreading or whatever it's
called and I noticed your post which seemed like bull but since I know
very little about CPU design and cache in particular, I wasn't
particularly sure. But then two other people who appear to know what
they're talking about posted replies which further suggest you don't
really know what you're talking about above.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Wait aren't you the guy who said this

Oh come on! He might truly be looking for some second opinions. Don't
throw his words back in his face already.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Mark]

Wait aren't you the guy who said this


I just find it interesting that you claim to know so much about CPU
design and cache in particular but don't really appear to know much
about chipsets for Intel's Conroe, none of which have been properly
publicly reviewed & tested anyway due to the NDA.

Interesting point, but his seemingly contradictory stances can perhaps be
defended. In terms of cache, you can argue about the theoretical strengths
of one approach over another. On the other hand, there aren't really
differences at the theoretical level for how chipsets work, and it is rather
a question of implementation. This you cannot get a handle on without seeing
actual benchmarks.

 

[Mike L]

"I just find it interesting that you claim to kno
so much about CP
design and cache in particular but don't really appear to know muc
about chipsets for Intel's Conroe, none of which have been properl
publicly reviewed & tested anyway due to the NDA

And no, before the accusations fly I haven't been chasing you. I wa
looking at the post about inverse hyperthreading or whatever it'
called and I noticed your post which seemed like bull but since
kno
very little about CPU design and cache in particular, I wasn'
particularly sure. But then two other people who appear to know wha
they're talking about posted replies which further suggest you don'
really know what you're talking about above."
Gues

There always has to be somebody who acts like a prick, eh? First o
all I didn't "claim" to know anything about CPU cache an
design. Someone asked a question, and I decided to put in my tw
cents; my post reflected noneother than what I've known SO FAR in al
my years of working with computers, nothing more and nothing less
Secondly, I know plenty about chipsets.. I don't ever remembe
stating that I didn't. The purpose of my whole thread was
hypothetical one, and I wanted to kno
everyone's views and opinions on the subject. Thirdly, it's quit
amusing that you considered my post in that thread abou
"Reverse Hyperthreading" to be "bull", yet yo
just admitted that you had no knowledge on the subject itself
therefore what gives you the right to object to my advice a
questionable?

And to everyone

My thread was designed at getting everyone's views and opinons on th
subject of whether you think an Intel CPU should be used primaril
with an Intel chipset. That's all. Yes, I know nothing has arrive
yet, I know NDA leashes have to be let go, and I know that I shoul
wait for all the review sites to do alittle of their own speculating
So far, so good; with the exception of that one person. Please kee
your comments coming as I aprreciate them very much.

In response to everyone so far, you guys have great points. If yo
look back, third-party chipsets did not always perform on par wit
Intel's own (most of the time). From a business standpoint, I'm jus
curious on whether because you licensed your technology to anothe
company, does that still warrant you to your privacy on the subjec
of it all? What I mean -- and using my example above -- is if Intel'
own chipsets were peforming better, do you not question yourself o
the matter of whether they had disclosed all they had to, or kep
some of it to themselves? Take the Crossfire support in their 975
chipset. Sure, it's great, but to me it doesn't seem like
satisfactory replica of an actual Crossfire platform running on
genuine ATI chipset itself. So, did ATI tell them what they needed t
know, or did they skimp out on the details? Get what I'm trying to sa
now? This is what I've been trying to get across to you guys..