Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > CPUs, Motherboards And Memory

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-10-11, 05:24 PM   #1
Moshing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 161
Default Z68 suspicious revision numbering?

By now, almost anybody who's been watching the Z68 hype building around it's launch know what it's claim to fame over P67 is, mainly the SSD caching and use of the iGPU simultaneously with a discreet GPU for encoding purposes. For the record though, neither of these require much or even ANY dedicated chipset hardware.

Now on to the suspicious part. I have a strong feeling that Z68 will offer no performance benefit over P67 except in those 2 scenarios where the new features are being used. But what is up with that B3 revision showing up all over the place? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Z68 is the exact same silicon as P67. Not a transistor different. I'd go so far as to accuse Intel of pulling them from the same wafer in fact. Chipset revisions are a telling factor when comparing multiple models within the same family. Same silicon gets same revision, regardless of binning. You can bin them out for various models, but if the base specs call for the same bus speeds across the line, then they will all perform similarly unless specific performance enhancing features are turned off for a specific family.

In this case, I'm thinking the WHOLE difference between H67, P67 and Z68 consists of a couple cuts with a laser and a firmware revision to recognize which cuts make it which model. Cut a line here, poof, H67 and P67 come to market not recognizing SSD caching. Cut a different line, poof, there goes overclocking and multiplier adjustments, and H67 is born. Cut a different one instead, and poof, the iGPU will no longer work alongside a discreet GPU, and you have a P67.

Moral of the story? I believe new purchasers will absolutely want Z68 if they don't mind paying a premium AND have need of either of those 2 new features. If you DO mind paying a premium because you have zero use for SSD caching or encoding, I strongly believe P67 will remain the bang for buck king in the Intel stable even after Z68's launch. And will most likely remain the preference of gamers.
__________________
Ci7 2600K @5Ghz/8Gb Patriot Viper II/Asus Sabertooth P67/EVGA GTX580 Black Ops/2x Patriot Torqx 128G(OS)/1Tb WD Black
Ci7 920/6Gb Corsair DDR3 1600/GA-EX58-UD3R/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2(OS)/2x 2Tb WD Green
Ci7 860/4Gb Patriot Viper II/EVGA P55 SLI/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2 (wife's rig)
Moshing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 07:30 PM   #2
Viral
Registered User of Women
 
Viral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,523
Default Re: Z68 suspicious revision numbering?

This whole B3 revision thing has been marketed like it was a feature or something. It's almost like slapping HD on some random device even! They fixed a problem, it's not the second coming! Just what it should have been from the start.

I'm thinking because everyone knows that B3 = one to get, they've decided to tag it onto the Z68 so it doesn't miss out on the free marketing?
__________________
Q9550 w/ Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme | 4GB Team Xtreme Dark 800MHz CL4 | Gigabyte X48-DS5
ASUS Radeon 5870 | 240GB OCZ Vertex 2 | 1TB WD Green Power | BenQ V2400W 24" LCD
Corsair HX-1000w | LG GGW-H20L 6x DL Blu-Ray Burner/HD-DVD Reader | Coolermaster Cosmos S

Acer TravelMate 4002WNLCi: Pentium M 725 @ 1.6GHz | Mobility Radeon 9700/64MB | 2GB DDR400 | 15.4" WXGA
Viral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 09:00 PM   #3
Moshing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 161
Default Re: Z68 suspicious revision numbering?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viral View Post
This whole B3 revision thing has been marketed like it was a feature or something. It's almost like slapping HD on some random device even! They fixed a problem, it's not the second coming! Just what it should have been from the start.

I'm thinking because everyone knows that B3 = one to get, they've decided to tag it onto the Z68 so it doesn't miss out on the free marketing?
I don't think it's that at all. Pretty sure my theory was closer if not dead on target. Intel doesn't just slap useless revisions on chipsets to sell them.

Edit: Just as a point of reference, buying a new mobo when Z68 comes out isn't outside of my monetary capability. I just don't see the point, is my whole point. Should I be proven wrong on this, have little doubt I'll be picking one up as soon as there's an Asus Sabertooth Z68. If Asus doesn't do a Sabertooth of Z68, which is entirely likely as rumor points towards Asus' next Sabertooth not coming till X79 and socket 2011, then I won't give up my killer mobo just for iGPU encoding. And already having my OS on an SSD, the new SSD caching feature is worthless to me as well.
__________________
Ci7 2600K @5Ghz/8Gb Patriot Viper II/Asus Sabertooth P67/EVGA GTX580 Black Ops/2x Patriot Torqx 128G(OS)/1Tb WD Black
Ci7 920/6Gb Corsair DDR3 1600/GA-EX58-UD3R/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2(OS)/2x 2Tb WD Green
Ci7 860/4Gb Patriot Viper II/EVGA P55 SLI/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2 (wife's rig)
Moshing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-11, 11:56 AM   #4
frenchy2k1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 449
Default Re: Z68 suspicious revision numbering?

biggest claim to fame is having both integrated GPU AND overclocking enabled.
Fact is that you are probably right (i could even verify it if you wanted).
This is a known practice called "binning". Similarly, an i5 2500 is the same as a i7 2600k, they just have been tested (and fuse locked) to different capabilities.

It is quite possible that the Z68 is a finally debugged P67/H67. If the yields were bad for having both overclocking and iGPU, they create 2 products with each one a different feature enabled. This allows them to sell "imperfect" dies. Maybe the early revisions of P67/H67 were supposed to have those features, may be not.

All semiconductor manufacturers do the same and sell as much of their production as possible (see the GTX465 from nvidia for example, which sold their worst GF100 chips).
__________________
As the universe is curved, there cannot be a straight answer...
frenchy2k1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-11, 06:18 PM   #5
Bman212121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,726
Default Re: Z68 suspicious revision numbering?

The P67 probably uses the same chipset as Z68 but all P67 boards lack a DVI connector to actually use the integrated graphics. There was obviously some reason why they had 2 different board options prior to Z68 (Like lucid not working properly yet) so they made two platforms instead.
Bman212121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-11, 11:39 AM   #6
Moshing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 161
Default Re: Z68 suspicious revision numbering?

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchy2k1 View Post
biggest claim to fame is having both integrated GPU AND overclocking enabled.
Fact is that you are probably right (i could even verify it if you wanted).
This is a known practice called "binning". Similarly, an i5 2500 is the same as a i7 2600k, they just have been tested (and fuse locked) to different capabilities.

It is quite possible that the Z68 is a finally debugged P67/H67. If the yields were bad for having both overclocking and iGPU, they create 2 products with each one a different feature enabled. This allows them to sell "imperfect" dies. Maybe the early revisions of P67/H67 were supposed to have those features, may be not.

All semiconductor manufacturers do the same and sell as much of their production as possible (see the GTX465 from nvidia for example, which sold their worst GF100 chips).
THIS has to be the BEST explanation I've seen yet. Binning was my suspicion as well, but I didn't want to lead anybody to conclusions if they had a better one then me. My only conclusion I was comfortable making was that they were the same silicon, but your binning explanation is the most reasonable cause.
__________________
Ci7 2600K @5Ghz/8Gb Patriot Viper II/Asus Sabertooth P67/EVGA GTX580 Black Ops/2x Patriot Torqx 128G(OS)/1Tb WD Black
Ci7 920/6Gb Corsair DDR3 1600/GA-EX58-UD3R/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2(OS)/2x 2Tb WD Green
Ci7 860/4Gb Patriot Viper II/EVGA P55 SLI/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2 (wife's rig)
Moshing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-11, 11:41 AM   #7
Moshing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 161
Default Re: Z68 suspicious revision numbering?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bman212121 View Post
The P67 probably uses the same chipset as Z68 but all P67 boards lack a DVI connector to actually use the integrated graphics. There was obviously some reason why they had 2 different board options prior to Z68 (Like lucid not working properly yet) so they made two platforms instead.
Yup, well said. I think there's more to it though then just that. I think they outright laser cut the chipset to disable features in the same way AMD and Intel uses laser cuts to shut off defective cores on CPUs to be sold as lower end parts.
__________________
Ci7 2600K @5Ghz/8Gb Patriot Viper II/Asus Sabertooth P67/EVGA GTX580 Black Ops/2x Patriot Torqx 128G(OS)/1Tb WD Black
Ci7 920/6Gb Corsair DDR3 1600/GA-EX58-UD3R/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2(OS)/2x 2Tb WD Green
Ci7 860/4Gb Patriot Viper II/EVGA P55 SLI/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2 (wife's rig)
Moshing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-11, 10:52 PM   #8
jcniest5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN., USA
Posts: 678
Default Re: Z68 suspicious revision numbering?

I was thinking the same thing and voiced my opinion on a different forum. The idea behind the B2 and B3 for P67 is that the latter has fixed the potentially problem SATA ports while B2 doesn't. Now, if Z68 is different than both B2 and B3, then why do they still need to put the B3 with the naming scheme? To me, B3 is bogus...it shouldn't even be there if Z68 is newer, everyone knows it's different. To put B3 there just confuses everyone.
__________________
Asus Rampage Extreme with Intel E1400@3.2Ghz, 4GB (2x2GB) OCZ Platinum PC3-1600, EVGA GTX285 SC 1GB DDR3
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe 1.01G, AMD A64 X2 3800+, 2x1GB Ultra PC-3200, BFG 9600GT OC 512MB DDR3
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, A64 3200 Venice, 2x1GB Crucial Ballistix PC-4000 and EVGA 7600GT 256MB DDR3
Abit KN8 Rev. 1.1, A64 3200+, 2x512MB Samsung PC-3700, MSI 8500GT 256MB DDR3
Gigabyte P4M900-M7 Rev. 7.0, Intel Celeron 440, 1GB Kingston, 6600LE
Gigabyte P4M900-M4 Rev. 6.1, P4 3Ghz Prescott, 2x1GB OCZ Platinum Rev. 2, EVGA 8500GT 1GB DDR2
ECS L4VXA2, P4 2Ghz, 768MB and 6600GT AGP
jcniest5 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 05-15-11, 10:59 PM   #9
Moshing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 161
Default Re: Z68 suspicious revision numbering?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcniest5 View Post
I was thinking the same thing and voiced my opinion on a different forum. The idea behind the B2 and B3 for P67 is that the latter has fixed the potentially problem SATA ports while B2 doesn't. Now, if Z68 is different than both B2 and B3, then why do they still need to put the B3 with the naming scheme? To me, B3 is bogus...it shouldn't even be there if Z68 is newer, everyone knows it's different. To put B3 there just confuses everyone.
But it's not different, that's the point. So the B3 is actually accurate. Z68 is the same silicon as P67 and H67 and possibly even comes off the same wafers.
__________________
Ci7 2600K @5Ghz/8Gb Patriot Viper II/Asus Sabertooth P67/EVGA GTX580 Black Ops/2x Patriot Torqx 128G(OS)/1Tb WD Black
Ci7 920/6Gb Corsair DDR3 1600/GA-EX58-UD3R/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2(OS)/2x 2Tb WD Green
Ci7 860/4Gb Patriot Viper II/EVGA P55 SLI/Radeon HD5870/750Gb Seagate ES.2 (wife's rig)
Moshing is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.