Extremely Disappointed with Ivy-Bridge

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Trackr

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
1,786
Ivy Bridge disappoints on every front:

1.) It is 3% faster. I didn't expect much IPC improvement from a "Tick" but 3% is 0%, nothing more.
2.) It takes about 10% less power, going from 32nm to 22nm.
http://www.guru3d.com/imageview.php?image=38117
3.) There are few reports (suspicious), but it seems more clear that Ivy Bridge is hotter than Sandy Bridge.

So, like always, I am not here to troll or rant. I want people to either agree or disagree with proof.
 
Good for mobile market, good for if you don't have sandy right now, but clearly not the jump over sandy people expected. Yes it runs hot when you start ramping volts, yes it doesn't overclock as high, but if you can hit a median of about 4.5-4.6 you'll net about 4.8 ghz equivelent to Sandy Bridge speeds, running at lower volts. Temps are an issue at a certain point, I've seen people with H100 water coolers hitting decent temps with just average clocks. It all depends what you wanna do, but don't sell your Sandy for it. The idle/load watts based on that pic are about 20 watts lower, which was expected. I'm not sure what you're getting at? If you want a jump over Sandy you have to go Sandy E, period. And me and yourself have 2600k's at 5.1 ghz on air, so I don't think we even need to think about Ivy. I wanted an Ivy but that was when I figured it would clock high like Sandy. I'm an overclocker, it's what I want in a chip, period.
 
Since you are "extremely" disappointed, what were you expecting Ivy Bridge to deliver on?

I think the only thing it disappoints on is sensitivity to higher volts and heat at upper limits of OC'ing.

I don't think Ivy Bridge was intended to be an upgrade path for people on Sandy Bridge. Shrugs.
 
Sandy Bridge:Ivy Bridge::iPhone 4:iPhone 4S

If you don't have an iPhone, go for the iPhone 4S. If you already have an iPhone 4, there's no point to upgrading.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
Good for mobile market
Click to expand...

How so?
http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1836/Battery-Test.png

ShuttleLuv said:
, good for if you don't have sandy right now
Click to expand...

Sandy Bridge is cooler. There's nothing else Ivy has on it.

ShuttleLuv said:
Yes it runs hot when you start ramping volts
Click to expand...

No, even at stock it runs hotter.

ShuttleLuv said:
The idle/load watts based on that pic are about 20 watts lower, which was expected.
Click to expand...

10% heat difference is expected with the change from 32nm to 22nm?

Am I supposed to expect a 30 watt difference at 10nm?
 
I don't know man then I guess it's just a refresh of Sandy that people can play with.
 
snoops said:
Since you are "extremely" disappointed, what were you expecting Ivy Bridge to deliver on?

I think the only thing it disappoints on is sensitivity to higher volts and heat at upper limits of OC'ing.

I don't think Ivy Bridge was intended to be an upgrade path for people on Sandy Bridge. Shrugs.
Click to expand...

I was expecting around a 7.5-10% increase in IPC.
I was expecting it to be MARGINALLY less power consuming, around 33-50% less power.
I was expecting it to be cooler, to the same degree (or more) than 32nm was compared to Nehalem.

Red Machine D said:
Sandy Bridge:Ivy Bridge::iPhone 4:iPhone 4S

If you don't have an iPhone, go for the iPhone 4S. If you already have an iPhone 4, there's no point to upgrading.
Click to expand...

iPhone 4S is twice as powerful as iPhone 4. I don't understand your comparison.
 
No it's a Sandy Bridge done on 22nm Tri-Gate 3d Transistors, so it's a different chip but offers much the same.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
No it's a Sandy Bridge done on 22nm Tri-Gate 3d Transistors, so it's a different chip but offers much the same.
Click to expand...

It's Sandy Bridge on 22nm where 22nm makes it hotter instead of cooler.

It's like creating a new aluminum that is heavier than tungsten.

Again, I don't mind that. You can have all the heavy aluminum you want.. but don't have people cheering and saying that it's fine, because that pisses me off.
 
Trackr said:
It's Sandy Bridge on 22nm where 22nm makes it hotter instead of cooler.

It's like creating a new aluminum that is heavier than tungsten.

Again, I don't mind that. You can have all the heavy aluminum you want.. but don't have people cheering and saying that it's fine, because that pisses me off.
Click to expand...

I agree they shouldn't have hyped the lower consumption and temps because it's just not true. But it is a new process that I feel will be ironed out in future revisions.
 
Dunno what to tell you. Sounds like you had some pretty lofty expectations from a tick release. 50% less power?

I can't recall any Intel processor refresh that delivered on any of those expectations. Maybe I have a bad memory.
 
snoops said:
Dunno what to tell you. Sounds like you had some pretty lofty expectations from a tick release. 50% less power?

I can't recall any Intel processor refresh that delivered on any of those expectations. Maybe I have a bad memory.
Click to expand...

Don't you remember i7-980?

It had 50% more cores but was about as hot as i7-920 and overclocked just as high.

And 22nm is larger compression, meaning it should have yielded better results.

This.. is basically like Intel are giving us 32nm and calling it 22nm. There is no difference between 2600k and 3770k besides maybe some minor tweaking and a new IGP.
 
Trackr said:
Don't you remember i7-980?

It had 50% more cores but was about as hot as i7-920 and overclocked just as high.

And 22nm is larger compression, meaning it should have yielded better results.

This.. is basically like Intel are giving us 32nm and calling it 22nm. There is no difference between 2600k and 3770k besides maybe some minor tweaking and a new IGP.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. i7-980 was like a $600 processor, i7-920 could be had for half that.
 
If they had used 2D transistors, they probably could have pulled off the lower temps and power consumption to a more significant degree. However, Intel is betting on 3D transistors being better in the long run, so IB is being used to mature that technology. So of course there are some issues.

There's room for improvement. Just like there's lots of room for improvement in AMD's Bulldozer design.
 
Ivy Bridge is exactly what Intel needed to bring out. It's got better integrated graphics and brings PCI-e 3.0 to Intel's mainstream offerings. The graphics are a really big improvement. I'd say it's the first Intel 3D solution that I'm capable of not laughing at.

I'm actually rather pleased that Ivy Bridge isn't much faster than Sandy Bridge on the CPU side. I just built a socket 2011 system, and I would have been just a little annoyed if an i7 3770k was significantly faster than my 3820.
 
Red Machine D said:
Sandy Bridge:Ivy Bridge::iPhone 4:iPhone 4S

If you don't have an iPhone, go for the iPhone 4S. If you already have an iPhone 4, there's no point to upgrading.
Click to expand...

very bad example. Iphone 4 processor is relatively slow compared to iphone 4s. It just runs circles around iphone 4, yes outside is the same but after having used friends iphone 4 vs my sister-in-law's iphone 4s, I was damn impressed by the performance. Iphone 4s as no lag what so ever.
 
Trackr said:
Ivy Bridge disappoints on every front:

1.) It is 3% faster. I didn't expect much IPC improvement from a "Tick" but 3% is 0%, nothing more.
2.) It takes about 10% less power, going from 32nm to 22nm.
http://www.guru3d.com/imageview.php?image=38117
3.) There are few reports (suspicious), but it seems more clear that Ivy Bridge is hotter than Sandy Bridge.

So, like always, I am not here to troll or rant. I want people to either agree or disagree with proof.
Click to expand...

You definitely aren't going to beat your 5.1Ghz Sandy with any Ivy Bridge chips, in case you're wondering.
 
Trackr said:
I was expecting around a 7.5-10% increase in IPC.
I was expecting it to be MARGINALLY less power consuming, around 33-50% less power.
I was expecting it to be cooler, to the same degree (or more) than 32nm was compared to Nehalem.
Click to expand...

Since when is 33 - 50% reduction considered marginal? If you were asked to take a marginal pay cut, would you expect that to be 1/3 to 1/2 of your pay?

ShuttleLuv said:
I agree they shouldn't have hyped the lower consumption and temps because it's just not true. But it is a new process that I feel will be ironed out in future revisions.
Click to expand...

I don't think they ever hyped lower temperatures. They hyped lower power, and it delivers there - it uses lower power across the board at stock and overclocked (Anad's test showed it using 70W less at 4.8 than a SB at 5.0 even though performance was identical, for example).

People are getting too hung up on the temperature issue - temperature is not equal to power use.
 
So 3% faster while using 10% less power (actually closer to 20% less CPU power... system power consumption probably isn't a good yard stick), extending its performance and performance/Watt leads is a disappointment? Tough customer.

It's mostly a die shrink of SNB, with a new GPU. People forget that only every other architecture gets significant gains through a new uarch. (spoiler: you will probably complain the same way about Broadwell in 2 years ;))

I skipped SNB and probably won't buy an IB desktop. I'm waiting for Haswell since it gets a new socket and I'm perfectly happy with my aging i7 CPU.
 
I'm going to ask Kyle to change the title of this website from [H] to [Confirmation Bias].

I bet that if I came in here and said that child molesters were bad, I'd get 50 replies as to why they're just "looking for love."

Thanks for nothing.
 
If you were expecting Ivy Bridge to secretly be something insane like a Sandy Bridge 2.0, then you should be disappointed. It was mostly common knowledge that it was going to be minor tweaks here and there and most of the performance was going to be from the IGP, not on the CPU core front, plus the addition of 3D Transistors and new 22nm process is that first step in Intels Tick-Tock strategy. Now if Haswell fails to perfect 22nm, 3D Transistors, improve on IB's power effeciency and maybe coincidently hitting the heat issue at the same time, and fails to add some CPU improvements, then I'd be extremely disappointed.

As it stands now, IB is pretty much exactly what we knew it was going to be for almost 6 months or more now.
 
Trackr said:
I'm going to ask Kyle to change the title of this website from [H] to [Confirmation Bias].

I bet that if I came in here and said that child molesters were bad, I'd get 50 replies as to why they're just "looking for love."

Thanks for nothing.
Click to expand...

LOL! You said in your first post to either agree or disagree...guess you weren't prepared for people not to agree with you.
 
Trackr said:
I'm going to ask Kyle to change the title of this website from [H] to [Confirmation Bias].

I bet that if I came in here and said that child molesters were bad, I'd get 50 replies as to why they're just "looking for love."

Thanks for nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish here. Your expectations were unrealistically high for Ivy Bridge's place in the tick-tock cycle, you all but dismissed Ivy Bridge's biggest features, you flatout deny every counterpoint tossed at you, and then you say this?

If you expected the kind of ridiculous improvements from Nehalem to Sandy Bridge, then of course you'll be disappointed. Sandy Bridge was a phenomenal product line. Ivy Bridge was nevermeant to be vastly superior; it introduced new technologies and improved things other than strictly increasing CPU performance. If we're honest, Ivy Bridge isn't for enthusiasts, it's for the mainstream market, and the 3770K is just a bone to throw to the enthusiasts to keep them on board if they haven't already upgraded to Sandy Bridge. It introduces new technology for the next generation to fully utilise.
 
Trackr said:
I'm going to ask Kyle to change the title of this website from [H] to [Confirmation Bias].
Click to expand...
Let's repeat...
Tick: die shrink of existing uarch, no large performance increases are expected
Tock: new uarch, significant performance increases are expected

Sandy Bridge: new uarch, tock <--- this gets a significant performance boost over previous uarch
Ivy Bridge: shrink, tick <--- this does not since it's a shrink of the existing uarch (you are complaining about this)
Haswell: new uarch, tock <--- this gets a significant performance boost over previous uarch

Expectations are better if they are aligned with reality
 
It is their "worst" CPU release since the P4. But it's not bad and the mainstream parts are decent.

I'm sure for low power and mobile stuff they'll come out with some cool parts.

Also new Atom parts soon-ish.

Edit: Even if it is a tick, their other ticks have been a lot better... Penryn/Wolfdale tick was pretty sweet.
 
Trackr said:
I'm going to ask Kyle to change the title of this website from [H] to [Confirmation Bias].

I bet that if I came in here and said that child molesters were bad, I'd get 50 replies as to why they're just "looking for love."

Thanks for nothing.
Click to expand...

The irony being Confirmation Bias goes both ways - and you are certainly taking it the other way. I'm not even sure that you realize it. That Dunning-Kruger effect is a slippery one.

Either way, I am pleased with IB. More performance, less power, better GPU. It's not the second coming of Alan Turing, but it is a solid step forward. It will do very well in the ultrabook/laptop market, which was probably the aim in the first place. Obviously the new process that they are betting on has room to grow and mature, but that is the nature of human achievement.

I was most pleased with the IB launch. People were acting like they were personally insulted over Intel's latest offering - witnessing all the emotions running wild over a product launch was staggering. And why? Because IB overclocks a few hundred MHz lower than SB? People are indigently stating that IB is a failure because of this. Meanwhile, Intel can just say "oh well" about the 0.005% of their market being upset about their latest computer chips not overclocking quite as much, because they are going to make millions of dollars from a solid chip, anyway.

Honestly, just take a break for a second dude. When you're stating that your fellow forum goers would probably sympathize with child molesters, it's time to turn off the computer, take a walk, get some fresh air and reflect on things that actually matter.
 
I agree... Don't buy it.

3% is not 0% it's 3% and often times its more than 3%

It consumes less power so it's better for mobile. Heat isn't an issue until to over volt which isn't gonna happen on a laptop. Troll less.
 
Trackr said:
I'm going to ask Kyle to change the title of this website from [H] to [Confirmation Bias].

I bet that if I came in here and said that child molesters were bad, I'd get 50 replies as to why they're just "looking for love."

Thanks for nothing.
Click to expand...

/infinite facepalm
 
somehipster said:
The irony being Confirmation Bias goes both ways - and you are certainly taking it the other way. I'm not even sure that you realize it. That Dunning-Kruger effect is a slippery one.

Either way, I am pleased with IB. More performance, less power, better GPU. It's not the second coming of Alan Turing, but it is a solid step forward. It will do very well in the ultrabook/laptop market, which was probably the aim in the first place. Obviously the new process that they are betting on has room to grow and mature, but that is the nature of human achievement.

I was most pleased with the IB launch. People were acting like they were personally insulted over Intel's latest offering - witnessing all the emotions running wild over a product launch was staggering. And why? Because IB overclocks a few hundred MHz lower than SB? People are indigently stating that IB is a failure because of this. Meanwhile, Intel can just say "oh well" about the 0.005% of their market being upset about their latest computer chips not overclocking quite as much, because they are going to make millions of dollars from a solid chip, anyway.

Honestly, just take a break for a second dude. When you're stating that your fellow forum goers would probably sympathize with child molesters, it's time to turn off the computer, take a walk, get some fresh air and reflect on things that actually matter.
Click to expand...

Okay, since you seem to be the most eloquent of the group, I'll address you.

Whenever a good product is released, it creates fans for the company that released it.

Then, whenever a bad product is released, Cognitive Dissonance runs absolutely rampant on [H] (and probably most other forums).

This, plus the fact that people hate agreeing with you and love contradicting you means you're very unlikely to get a good answer when a new product is released.

Which is why I asked for PROOF. When I claim so, I get insulted. That is annoying to the extent that I must create analogies - that's how my brain works. If I were to turn off the computer, I would have to assume you all are idiots, and I don't want to.

On Topic:

You claim this:

1.) "More performance"
- Absolutely baffling. It's as if your Cognitive Dissonance is so great that you cannot understand math. 3% is like the difference between 120 FPS and 123 FPS. THAT IS NOTHING. NOOOTHING.
2.) "Less power"
- Ah, I see. You weren't even paying attention. Ivy Bridge takes MORE POWER. MOOOAR.
3.) "Better GPU"
- Wow, 16 ALUs instead of 12. I'll go fire up Far Cry.

In summation, my time is utterly wasted here but I keep having renewed hope for reasons I can't seem to understand.
 
Ivy Bridge doesn't "take" more power. Every single review I've read shows it consumes less. Both in idle and load states. The GPU is a big boost to laptop owners as well as anyone not using discrete GPU which is much of the rest of the world.

I see what the issue is, you don't actually know what you're talking about.
 
RamonGTP said:
Ivy Bridge doesn't "take" more power. Every single review I've read shows it consumes less. Both in idle and load states. The GPU is a big boost to laptop owners as well as anyone not using discrete GPU which is much of the rest of the world.

I see what the issue is, you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes, that has to be it.

I didn't say it was conclusive, but according to the Ivy-Bridge Mobile review, it does seem to take more power, as battery life on an equivalent battery is far less.

On the desktop side, it IS less, but by 10%, which is crazy considering this is a 40% shrink.
 
Trackr said:
1.) "More performance"
- Absolutely baffling. It's as if your Cognitive Dissonance is so great that you cannot understand math. 3% is like the difference between 120 FPS and 123 FPS. THAT IS NOTHING. NOOOTHING.
2.) "Less power"
- Ah, I see. You weren't even paying attention. Ivy Bridge takes MORE POWER. MOOOAR.
3.) "Better GPU"
- Wow, 16 ALUs instead of 12. I'll go fire up Far Cry.

In summation, my time is utterly wasted here but I keep having renewed hope for reasons I can't seem to understand.
Click to expand...

You can scoff at 3% all day long, but 3% is more than 0%, so it does offer more performance.

It does use less power. Every single review says this. Every single one. You are taking one test, of three different laptops, with different configurations, and BIOSes, and settings, and batteries and trying to extrapolate that to it taking more power?

It has a significantly (or maybe for you, marginally) better GPU - by some accounts up to 50% faster than SB. Whether that personally benefits you is beside the point - it is a significant advance for Intel.

What your post mostly comes down to is, Ivy didn't meet my wildly optimistic and unrealistic expectations, so it must be a failure. News flash - you aren't everyone.
 
So you will take guess work and present it as gospel (power consumption that favors SB) and down play proven facts by claiming 10% less when it's more than 10%

You are proving that you not having a clue is most certainly the issue here. Come back when you can present your data more accurately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top