Ivy Bridge Benchmarks, Specifications, and Q2 2012 Release Date Leak

More like this
23

Comments

Comments are closed on this article

avatar

Raymond Day

January 08, 2012 at 5:45am

I wanted to get one with that saves more power. 35 watt is there best it looks like. I hope they made like a Atom + i type CPU in one chip so you can do the power way down then up to 35 watts when you need it. But for just Text and web stuff you don't need to use all that power.

-Raymond Day

avatar

HTWingNut

January 07, 2012 at 8:45am

Looking forward to Ivy Bridge for my next laptop. Currently sporting an AMD Llano, which is pretty decent, but more computing power would be welcome. Otherwise desktop will stick with i5-2400, plenty for my needs.

avatar

Ilander

December 05, 2011 at 7:25am

@PeanutFox

The overclocking potential will be about the same as SB, I think.  Less heat means more overclocking, but a die shrink means less voltage, which means less overclocking.  Plus, even if it isn't a historical issue for Intel, a new lithography process also can bring with it teething pains that limit the overclocking as well.  So, conceptually, where Sandy Bridge is a Bugatti Veyron, Ivy Bridge is an Ariel Atom V8.  Both are super fast, but one is very delicate.  Okay, they're both delicate, but one is much more so.

I don't expect overclocks on the 3770K to exceed 5.2 GHz.  Probably the more likely zone will be around 4.8, a smidge faster than the 2600K's 4.6, but really, nothing more than a couple seconds in any benchmarks.

I think Intel's cache-race with itself is also dying out here.  No cache increase tells me that the diminishing returns are really small now with increasing cache.  I've suspected that it would level off, and it has.  Intel has mostly conquered the mountain of data access, for now.  They won't be back until 64-bit variables become the norm.

avatar

Peanut Fox

December 05, 2011 at 8:56am

 

I think the superior power management of trigate transistors will play a big role in increasing the headroom for maximum overclock potential on these chips.  The stock clock of the chips are also up another 100Mhz.  That's not going to shake out to much in the performance realm, but it does hint at the idea that the new process isn't having any trouble with yeilds in the least.

I think you're dead on about the amount of cache though.  I'd like to see a down clocked 3960X vs a 3930k to really see if the extra cache the chip offers goes anywhere.  I suppose you could turn the HT off on the 2600k and down clock it to a 2500k and get a nice benchmark there as well. 

I'm also very familar with both the Veyron and the limited edition V8 Atom.  Truth be told if I had the money I'd for sure buy the money for the Atom and pass on the Veyron. The Atom is not only faster in every metric save for top speed, but I think it will also be much more fun to drive come track day.  If you want a road car with aminities it's not as if they're in short supply. 

In contrast I've always bought the ticks since Lynfield.

 

avatar

illusionslayer

December 05, 2011 at 1:02pm

Why not overclock the 3930K? I mean, that's what's going to happen in the real world, isn't it? People claiming that their 3930k is just as good as the 3960X because it runs at the same clock?

avatar

Peanut Fox

December 08, 2011 at 12:22pm

I don't find the x79 chipset to be an attractive offer.  

avatar

Ilander

December 05, 2011 at 7:01am

And that's why I only buy Intel "Tock" products.  "Tick" products are always just minor improvements that don't really matter as much once you've overclocked the "Tock" ones.  So, my Intel portfolio was Conroe, Bloomfield, Sandy Bridge, with a Phenom II in between when I skipped Kentsfield.

avatar

newegg911

December 05, 2011 at 5:51pm

Yeah, ticks are a total yawn. Most people who actually care already bought SB or are sitting on what they have. (CoreI here and it would feel like throwing money away to buy right now.)

avatar

Rift2

December 05, 2011 at 2:32am

I doubt it will be cheap when it first comes out thus the put off. I just like AMD cause they are cheap

Maybe a year from Now Ivy Bridge will be cheap.

 

avatar

Peanut Fox

December 05, 2011 at 8:58am

Pricing will be similar to the 2500k and 2600k when they launched, and they were quite affordable.  Even their old 920 which was a highend chip wasn't expensive when it launched.

avatar

bminor13

December 05, 2011 at 1:18am

The i5-3470T should be given another number; it's obviously not going to be in the same class as the others, with half the cache and physical cores.

avatar

clipse84

December 04, 2011 at 11:55pm

hey guys i have a quick question i currently have i7 950. i have about 4k budget on my next build. i was waiting on the ivy bridge buts its not really a big upgrade from sandy. my question to you guys are should i get a sandy- e 3930k and upgrade to a ivy-e when it comes out q4 2012 and use the same board. or should i wait till the ivy comes out in april, and after get the haswell in 2013. Im really waiting on pci 3.0 gpu cards.. thanks

avatar

Peanut Fox

December 05, 2011 at 9:07am

I think this would make a better forum post, but it really depends on your use.  If you're not doing anything that's going to take advantage of the extra two cores it's not worth the extra money investment over a vanilla SandyBridge build.  

What exactly are you going to be using the machine for?

avatar

limitbreaker

December 05, 2011 at 12:22am

 

Considering that intel isnt in the habit of giving price drops on last gen CPU and that (if these bench are real) the ivy bridge will only give marginal improvements in horse power, i would just buy what ever ill enjoy now. If youre going to spend 4000$ on a build then you probably wouldnt care about the electric bill to make these cpu matter for a desktop. Personally i dont think the ivybridge is worth waiting for, it's the next gen videocards that is worth waiting for.

 

avatar

Peanut Fox

December 04, 2011 at 9:44pm

 

I see 77 watt TDP and think that overclocking on this platform has great potential.

I'm also looking forward to the onboard graphics.  Not having SLI 580s dumping heat into my loop when I don't require the performance of a dedicated GPU will be nice.

Now if they increse the PCI lanes, add better support USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 I don't think there will be much I can ask for.

I was planning a Sandy Bridge E build, but I don't think the x79 chipset is a worthy investment in my case.  I hate the memory layout, the lack of onboard video (Although it makes sense on an enthusisit platform), and no improvment over z68 for SATA and USB. 

 

avatar

kiaghi7

December 04, 2011 at 5:08pm

It's pretty clear these are simply the next phase of their main-stream processors...

 

Even the i7's are clearly entry-level, as their already available enthusiast level Sandybridge-E series has more cores by default (6 rather than 4), but more total cache and very arguably superior RAM capability.

 

The initial Ivybridge processors are obviously slated for power savings, coming in at nearly half the 130w of a Sandybridge-E, but at a cost of not being as enthusiast oriented.

 

Now when the Ivybridge-E series comes along, Octal cores along with all of the Sandybridge-E benefits will be quite nice to see.

avatar

limitbreaker

December 04, 2011 at 2:42pm

the lack of real cpu gain is leaving a door open for AMD to catch up, i really hope that they take it for once.

avatar

DU00

December 04, 2011 at 11:05am

Well the power efficiency gains are nice, but I can't say I'm not a little bit dissapointed. At least I won't have this lingering compulsion to upgrade when these are released released (if these numbers are true). 

avatar

Jeffredo

December 04, 2011 at 10:53am

Sounds like an i5-3570k will be replacing my Phenom II X4 955.  Finished with AMD (after ten years).

avatar

limitbreaker

December 04, 2011 at 12:28pm

i have a 1090T on a 990FX motherboard so i personally hope amd will manage to get back into the best bang for buck game for the enthusiast level with the Piledriver. Besides, the 990FX is better than any chipset intel has released so far atleast in features, who needs PCI-E 3 @dual 8x when you have PCI-E 2 @ dual 16X.

avatar

EthicSlave

December 06, 2011 at 11:06am

PCI-E 3 @dual 8x when you have PCI-E 2 @ dual 16X <---this is exactly the same in bandwidth!

avatar

tornato7

December 04, 2011 at 11:52am

I have the exact same proc, and most of the new processors only have marignal performance gaikns over ours. Bet cpu ever.

avatar

Danthrax66

December 04, 2011 at 3:06pm

Well I had the AMD CPU for a while and at stock yes the AMD has little advantage over Intel at stock in terms of gaming but once you OC an Intel chip to 4.5+ghz it's like a massive bottle kneck is removed from my system and the performance is night and day. That was with a 2500k so I expect Ivy Bridge to be a lot better depending on the OC headroom and the price, Also PCI-e3 should add more bandwidth since the lanes, while still having the same/similar count, will have a higher bandwidth on each lane.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.
Don't have an account? Join Now.