Sure, but then i run the risk of wasting $50 and it still doesn't work. And i don't particularly care about extending the life of this machine since it's getting old, so I figure i might as well just buy a new machine now.
I'm halfway tempted to wait a few weeks for Trinity to come out to see if it forces Intel to lower prices, but I'm doubting it will actually be a faster CPU and I'm not too worried about the money so I think i'll just go for it now.
There aren't any shops around? Theres a few here that will let me tinker for free, though the old saying goes, you break it you bought it.
In windows, the Llano chips seem to usually beat the Intel ones fairly easily in graphics workloads, but it seems either the Intel Linux drivers are much better than the Intel Windows drivers (very possible), or the Catalyst drivers in Linux are slower than in Windows.
They are pretty close in the mobile segment from what I have seen so far. Desktop is another story, there is a much bigger gap. Some reviews says 40% and some other 60%.
Impressive. CPU and GPU performance is great, Linux support awesome, and this should make really good cpu for laptops. Waiting for OpenCL and video acceleration support (VDPAU preferably ;D ). Intel Linux team is doing great job.
Best x86 processor ever, need to buy it quickly . Hope AMD will respond properly.
"Holy crap" is my initial impression of the HD 4000 graphics on my 3770K. It's release week (it was only offered up for sale at Amazon over the weekend I believe); I have just finished installing my new system; I grabbed the latest updates from Fedora 17 Beta, and WOW. It FLIES. Here are the highlights:
30 fps in Second Life (64-bit native client, Armin Weatherwax's Teapot custom viewer)
Perfectly fluid Kwin compositing
2D performance visually appears to beat Catalyst by a mile, or at least the responsiveness to input events -- you move the mouse and it just goes. Scrolling in web browsers is amazing. It's like using an iPhone, except open source and a desktop. My main complaint about Catalyst is that it has terrible tearing artifacts with Tear-Free disabled, and horrible responsiveness with Tear-Free enabled. You get both with Intel. I don't know how. r600g gives you low responsiveness and no artifacts also, but I can't use r600g with my SI card.
Haven't found any rendering artifacts, instabilities or indications of poor performance yet. The only things I miss are OpenGL 3.0 (which only appears to be available for Sandy Bridge right now, at least on Fedora 17 Beta) and of course the non-existent hardware-accelerated OpenCL.
I am really excited that Intel was able to support Ivy Bridge so far in advance, and the support is so robust on release week. Thanks to all the Intel folks and community members who contributed to this; it makes a real difference for those of us who need working and stable open source graphics drivers
AMD, TAKE NOTES: your competitors are doing much better than you with the stability and performance (or in some cases, mere existence) of open source driver support on release day of their products. The Intel drivers for Ivy Bridge are, as far as I'm concerned, a "grand slam home run". The NI-derived APU open drivers I would say are a "single" base-hit. The SI discrete / Trinity APU open drivers I would say are a "strike-out" or "ground into double play". If you are looking for an open source driver release schedule that is considered acceptable to "picky" customers (I would consider myself picky), all you have to do is emulate what Intel just did with Ivy Bridge. Anything more than that is just icing on the cake.