Ivy Bridge-E, Core i7 4900 series - Q3 2013

Do note that Intel will not offer any changes on the platform side of things - both Sandy Bridge-E (i7-39xx) and Ivy Bridge-E (i7-49xx) processors will connect to the Waimea Bay platform, more known as the X79 chipset. This also explains why motherboard vendors from the Far East are preparing not one, but two motherboard refreshes based on the X79. First refresh is scheduled to appear with the i7-3970K (from limited number of vendors), while the second refresh is scheduled for Computex Taipei 2013, with the arrival on market in September/October 2013 (with the launch of Core i7-4930, 4960, 4970 and the rumored 4990 part).
Click to expand...

So wait, some vendors are going to refresh the X79 platform twice, but the platform itself isn't changing? Makes me wonder what exactly they're adding to the boards.
 
Weird. We see 3970X all over the images and still the article keeps saying 3970K. Which one should we use?
 
That is a bit comfusing.. so is 3970x a 6c/12t Ivy processor or just a slightly higher clocked 3960x?
 
Wonder how the temperature will be for this chip.

SB-E is already pretty hot already, IB-E is hard to imagine.
 
Intel are greedy with cpu's that have more than 4 cores.

you telling me that they cant release a cpu that is is similar to 2500k but with 6 cores around $350 price range.
 
I just want an Ivybridge CPU with 6 cores (and fixed TIM). :(


[hoping someone at Intel reads this]
 
TroyX said:
Intel are greedy with cpu's that have more than 4 cores.

you telling me that they cant release a cpu that is is similar to 2500k but with 6 cores around $350 price range.
Click to expand...

The day Intel releases a Core i7 3870K with 6 cores (12 threads) sans Intel HD 4000 running at 3.8 GHz (4.0 GHz Turbo Boost) on socket 1155 (or 1150) priced at $399 is the day I am elected President of Earth. :D
 
octoberasian said:
The day Intel releases a Core i7 3870K with 6 cores (12 threads) sans Intel HD 4000 running at 3.8 GHz (4.0 GHz Turbo Boost) on socket 1155 (or 1150) priced at $399 is the day I am elected President of Earth. :D
Click to expand...

thats what i dont understand, Intel will still be selling the 4 core cpu's at a high volume and on top of that sell tons more of 6 core cpu's.

its almost like as if they're saying no thanks people, we got plenty of money and we dont need more.

2500k 4 core cpu today is around $200 dollars.

2500k 6 core at $350-$400 price range would make them alot more money than what they are pricing them today.

six core 2500k/3570k or 2600k/3770k can be done.

i just dont get it, i think its pride and a sprinkle of greed mixed together.
 
Last edited:
TroyX said:
thats what i dont understand, Intel will still be selling the 4 core cpu's at a high volume and on top of that sell tons more of 6 core cpu's.

its almost like as if they're saying no thanks people, we got plenty of money and we dont need more.

2500k 4 core cpu today is around $200 dollars.

2500k 6 core at $350-$400 price range would make them alot more money than what they are pricing them today.

six core 2500k/3570k or 2600k/3770k can be done.

i just dont get it, i think its pride and a sprinkle of greed mixed together.
Click to expand...

The biggest argument I would have in Intel's favor here is that giant corporations aren't quite as dumb as we would like to think.... They pay millions on market research and if X# of enthusiasts expected to buy said cpu doesn't equal Y# of dollars to cover the costs developing a 6 core part... They just won't do it. I wouldn't be shocked at all if that's where non-server x79 came from, the bean counters found out you'd lose a few thousand sales of this mythical 6 core but gain thousands more on the mark up since enthusiasts like me have more dollars than sense.
 
MasonD said:
I just want an Ivybridge CPU with 6 cores (and fixed TIM). :(


[hoping someone at Intel reads this]
Click to expand...

It's been said multiple times. Not going to happen. You should be looking at SB-E or IB-E if you want more than 4 cores. Reality is, most consumer desktop applications do not use more than 2 cores, and an additional 2 cores is more than enough to handle background processes.

TroyX said:
thats what i dont understand, Intel will still be selling the 4 core cpu's at a high volume and on top of that sell tons more of 6 core cpu's.

its almost like as if they're saying no thanks people, we got plenty of money and we dont need more.

2500k 4 core cpu today is around $200 dollars.

2500k 6 core at $350-$400 price range would make them alot more money than what they are pricing them today.

six core 2500k/3570k or 2600k/3770k can be done.

i just dont get it, i think its pride and a sprinkle of greed mixed together.
Click to expand...

Greed plus market differentiation between the enthusiast and mainstream line (yes, 1155 is mainstream). Intel is a corporation, and a corporation's purpose is to make money.
 
This is why im sitting on my 2600k. 4.9ghz out of it daily for the last 21 months at almost 1.5v. Never a hiccup. I bet Intel will still be sucking the tit dry on the SB/IB cpus before mine dies (and everyone said it wouldnt last 6 months).
 
TroyX said:
thats what i dont understand, Intel will still be selling the 4 core cpu's at a high volume and on top of that sell tons more of 6 core cpu's.

its almost like as if they're saying no thanks people, we got plenty of money and we dont need more.

2500k 4 core cpu today is around $200 dollars.

2500k 6 core at $350-$400 price range would make them alot more money than what they are pricing them today.

six core 2500k or 2600k can be done.

i just dont get it, i think its pride and a sprinkle of greed mixed together.
Click to expand...

Humor me for a minute. I'm going to type something crazy. :D

Let's say in a perfect, parallel universe, AMD released the Bulldozer FX-8120 (now clocked at 3.2 GHz) and 8150 (3.6 GHz). The 8120 performed better than a 2600K (3.4 GHz @ $309), and the FX-8150 traded blows with the 3770K (3.5GHz @ $329). Then, the low blow from AMD happened like a left hook-- 8120 was priced at $299 and the 8150 at $319. Now, clockspeed barely matters, all the processors are performing beautifully well in both single and multi-threaded applications.

Now, the market has an 8 (technically 4 cores/8 threads) core processor that's priced competitively against the 8 threaded 2600K and 3770K.

Intel, therefore, releases the 4.0 GHz Core i7 3930K-- a 6 core, 12 threaded processor priced at $399 to combat AMD. Now, there's competition on who has more cores and more threads with very good performance at a good price.

AMD responds with two 6 module, 12 threaded Bulldozer FX processors-- the FX-9120 (3.7 GHz) and FX-9150 (3.9 GHz). It's priced at $329 and $349, respectively. The FX-9120 beats their $329 3770K, and their FX-9150 performs close to the $399 3930K. Intel counterattacks with the i7 3820K (6 cores, 12 threads), but is clocked at 3.8 GHz. Its performance beats the FX-9120 and comes close to the FX-9150. However, it's priced at $339. So, for $10 more than an FX-9120, you can get a faster processor.

Sounds like a great deal, right? Yup, you bet.

Then, Intel comes in for the kill-- they release the Extreme Edition, 6 core (12 threaded) 3960X clocked at 4.1 GHz with a 4.3 GHz Turbo. They price it at $499. AMD has nothing to respond to it, and begin working on Piledriver modules to combat Intel's upcoming Haswell processors.

Ah, it's a beautiful world isn't it? There is world peace, no religious extremists, economy is on the up-and-up, Congress actually cares about the American people, and the national unemployment rate is 2%. :p

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But... *BAM!*... reality sets in and we have the FX-8120 and FX-8150.

Computer enthusiasts and AMD loyalists are jumping out of their houses like stockbrokers jumping out of buildings during the Great Depression, and landing on airbags held by Intel employees and marketing executives. The computer world is in chaos, cats raining and pigs fail to fly. Overweight gamers living in their parent's basement are suddenly seeing sunlight for the first time since Doom was released and exercising.

AMD's newest processors fail to live up to expectations, and are priced erroneously against a better performing 2500K and 2600K in real world gaming benchmarks. Intel just looks at AMD and laughs. They laugh heartily all the way to the bank. That $1 billion payout some years ago? *pfft* Chump change.

Intel goes to the drawing board and crafts another knife to stab AMD with. They release the Socket 2011 i7 processors and plunge that knife deep into AMD's chest. However, it doesn't stop there. Ivy Bridge is released and another knife plunges into AMD. AMD struggles to go up against Intel like a one-on-one, all out match at the MGM Grand in Vegas. Like a war torn soldier, they limp back to their headquarters, get rid of their old CEO and a couple of their marketing executives, and begin work on Piledriver and Steamroller.

Seeing no competition that can even match or beat the now fabled 2600K, the famed David versus Goliath match makes a decidedly expected turn of events-- Goliath beats David right into the dirt, face unrecognizable by the gaming community at large. He is nothing more than a weathered gladiator now looking for greener pastures elsewhere to make its mark. AMD, therefore, moves into expanding and improving their mobile and desktop APUs, purchase SeaMicro, start HSA Foundation, and divert other resources to their GPU and server line, especially investing more into cloud server technologies.

Intel continues its blows repeatedly like a bully in a schoolyard. There isn't any competition to stand up to them. AMD is left alone and deserted in that dark corner of the schoolyard, black-eyed and bruised. Intel is that unexpected nerd with the smarts, the muscles, and the resources to beat AMD; cocky and grinning. AMD becomes that unexpected C-average jock on the ground, weak and struggling; only good at one or two things like an all-star high school running back that can only do one thing good-- run and catch.

Intel says, "Hey, we put the money and time into our products, let's price it how we want to price it." The 6 core processors are priced high as a result.

That's the world we live in. No competition, no one to stand up to Intel. Products are priced accordingly in response to the competition because they can.
 
octoberasian said:
.
.
I wonder how much that would add to the $999 price of the 3960X. >_>

I shudder to think it may actually break $1000. $1299 perhaps for 200 MHz more?

Will anyone be crazy (*cough*stupid*cough*) to buy that???
Click to expand...

octoberasian said:
Oh, correction, it's $1029 on the 3960X. I thought that's been $999 lately. :eek:
Click to expand...

Hasn't the flagship model always been $999 and if a new one comes out they lower prices of the rest, or did they get greedy with lack of competition.
 
octoberasian said:
Humor me for a minute. I'm going to type something crazy. :D

Let's say in a perfect, parallel universe, AMD released the Bulldozer FX-8120 (now clocked at 3.2 GHz) and 8150 (3.6 GHz). The 8120 performed better than a 2600K (3.4 GHz @ $309), and the FX-8150 traded blows with the 3770K (3.5GHz @ $329). Then, the low blow from AMD happened like a left hook-- 8120 was priced at $299 and the 8150 at $319. Now, clockspeed barely matters, all the processors are performing beautifully well in both single and multi-threaded applications.

Now, the market has an 8 (technically 4 cores/8 threads) core processor that's priced competitively against the 8 threaded 2600K and 3770K.

Intel, therefore, releases the 4.0 GHz Core i7 3930K-- a 6 core, 12 threaded processor priced at $399 to combat AMD. Now, there's competition on who has more cores and more threads with very good performance at a good price.

AMD responds with two 6 module, 12 threaded Bulldozer FX processors-- the FX-9120 (3.7 GHz) and FX-9150 (3.9 GHz). It's priced at $329 and $349, respectively. The FX-9120 beats their $329 3770K, and their FX-9150 performs close to the $399 3930K. Intel counterattacks with the i7 3820K (6 cores, 12 threads), but is clocked at 3.8 GHz. Its performance beats the FX-9120 and comes close to the FX-9150. However, it's priced at $339. So, for $10 more than an FX-9120, you can get a faster processor.

Sounds like a great deal, right? Yup, you bet.

Then, Intel comes in for the kill-- they release the Extreme Edition, 6 core (12 threaded) 3960X clocked at 4.1 GHz with a 4.3 GHz Turbo. They price it at $499. AMD has nothing to respond to it, and begin working on Piledriver modules to combat Intel's upcoming Haswell processors.

Ah, it's a beautiful world isn't it? There is world peace, no religious extremists, economy is on the up-and-up, Congress actually cares about the American people, and the national unemployment rate is 2%. :p

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But... *BAM!*... reality sets in and we have the FX-8120 and FX-8150.

Computer enthusiasts and AMD loyalists are jumping out of their houses like stockbrokers jumping out of buildings during the Great Depression, and landing on airbags held by Intel employees and marketing executives. The computer world is in chaos, cats raining and pigs fail to fly. Overweight gamers living in their parent's basement are suddenly seeing sunlight for the first time since Doom was released and exercising.

AMD's newest processors fail to live up to expectations, and are priced erroneously against a better performing 2500K and 2600K in real world gaming benchmarks. Intel just looks at AMD and laughs. They laugh heartily all the way to the bank. That $1 billion payout some years ago? *pfft* Chump change.

Intel goes to the drawing board and crafts another knife to stab AMD with. They release the Socket 2011 i7 processors and plunge that knife deep into AMD's chest. However, it doesn't stop there. Ivy Bridge is released and another knife plunges into AMD. AMD struggles to go up against Intel like a one-on-one, all out match at the MGM Grand in Vegas. Like a war torn soldier, they limp back to their headquarters, get rid of their old CEO and a couple of their marketing executives, and begin work on Piledriver and Steamroller.

Seeing no competition that can even match or beat the now fabled 2600K, the famed David versus Goliath match makes a decidedly expected turn of events-- Goliath beats David right into the dirt, face unrecognizable by the gaming community at large. He is nothing more than a weathered gladiator now looking for greener pastures elsewhere to make its mark. AMD, therefore, moves into expanding and improving their mobile and desktop APUs, purchase SeaMicro, start HSA Foundation, and divert other resources to their GPU and server line, especially investing more into cloud server technologies.

Intel continues its blows repeatedly like a bully in a schoolyard. There isn't any competition to stand up to them. AMD is left alone and deserted in that dark corner of the schoolyard, black-eyed and bruised. Intel is that unexpected nerd with the smarts, the muscles, and the resources to beat AMD; cocky and grinning. AMD becomes that unexpected C-average jock on the ground, weak and struggling; only good at one or two things like an all-star high school running back that can only do one thing good-- run and catch.

Intel says, "Hey, we put the money and time into our products, let's price it how we want to price it." The 6 core processors are priced high as a result.

That's the world we live in. No competition, no one to stand up to Intel. Products are priced accordingly in response to the competition because they can.
Click to expand...



Post of the year? Can't believe I read all that.
 
Tisca said:
Hasn't the flagship model always been $999 and if a new one comes out they lower prices of the rest, or did they get greedy with lack of competition.
Click to expand...

I honestly have no idea when that price went up. Wasn't the 3960X $999 when it was released?
 
MSRP for the Extreme Edition models are always $999, but retailer markup almost always makes it anywhere from $1029 to $1099 or higher. Additionally, the release of a newer Extreme Edition model does not mean the old ones go down in price. They're just phased out of existence, with the only price reductions coming from retailers attempting to clear stock.
 
I would rather if Intel released SB-E on 22nm already would make it more appealing but its not. Even better if IB-E came out soon but we have to wait until next year.
 
TroyX said:
thats what i dont understand, Intel will still be selling the 4 core cpu's at a high volume and on top of that sell tons more of 6 core cpu's.

its almost like as if they're saying no thanks people, we got plenty of money and we dont need more.

2500k 4 core cpu today is around $200 dollars.

2500k 6 core at $350-$400 price range would make them alot more money than what they are pricing them today.

six core 2500k/3570k or 2600k/3770k can be done.

i just dont get it, i think its pride and a sprinkle of greed mixed together.
Click to expand...

I think you need to look again at the packaging and thermal limits. SB-E has 6 cores only by having a gigantic TDP that OEM's don't want to deal with for volume machines. That, and market segmentation. Whats the point of a 6-core 1155 chip when you can't even get more than one full-lane slot on it.




octoberasian said:
Humor me for a minute. I'm going to type something crazy. :D

**snip**

That's the world we live in. No competition, no one to stand up to Intel. Products are priced accordingly in response to the competition because they can.
Click to expand...

That was great :p I half expected there to be a AMD/Intel CPU forbidden romance scene in that fan fiction.
 
octoberasian said:
No competition, no one to stand up to Intel. Products are priced accordingly in response to the competition because they can.
Click to expand...

There's a slight fault in this logic, iirc. When AMD ruled the roost in the enthusiast market back in the days of the A64 and A64 X2 (and FX line of the era), intel STILL had $1000+ Extreme Edition processors that couldn't outpace AMD's offerings in sheer performance.

example:
Pentium D 955 vs X2 4800+
 
DejaWiz said:
There's a slight fault in this logic, iirc. When AMD ruled the roost in the enthusiast market back in the days of the A64 and A64 X2 (and FX line of the era), intel STILL had $1000+ Extreme Edition processors that couldn't outpace AMD's offerings in sheer performance.

example:
Pentium D 955 vs X2 4800+
Click to expand...

Hey now, I have a 955EE system running still @ 4.3ghz on air all these years later. Don't be a hater ;)
 
I hate Intel. So hard.

Ivy Bridge-E should be released in a month or two, and next year Haswell-E with its AVX2 instructions and 6-8 cores for prosumer and up to 10 cores in server parts.

I damn AMD as well because Intel has no reason to do what I've said because AMD doesn't have enough performance to compete with Intel in the higher segment.
 
DejaWiz said:
There's a slight fault in this logic, iirc. When AMD ruled the roost in the enthusiast market back in the days of the A64 and A64 X2 (and FX line of the era), intel STILL had $1000+ Extreme Edition processors that couldn't outpace AMD's offerings in sheer performance.

example:
Pentium D 955 vs X2 4800+
Click to expand...

Yeah, and wasn't that around the time when Intel was bribing/blackmailing OEMs to only use Intel products?
 
DejaWiz said:
There's a slight fault in this logic, iirc. When AMD ruled the roost in the enthusiast market back in the days of the A64 and A64 X2 (and FX line of the era), intel STILL had $1000+ Extreme Edition processors that couldn't outpace AMD's offerings in sheer performance.

example:
Pentium D 955 vs X2 4800+
Click to expand...

That's the past, I was talking more about the present.

The days of SB/IVB versus AMD's current offerings when you take a look at Intel's current midrange and high-end lineup.

Sure, back then, Intel was in similar shoes like AMD but they learned from their mistakes and we got Core 2 Duo and so on.
 
TroyX said:
Intel are greedy with cpu's that have more than 4 cores.

you telling me that they cant release a cpu that is is similar to 2500k but with 6 cores around $350 price range.
Click to expand...

They do. It's called the 2600k.

In most heavily multithreaded tests the performance increase is 25-35%! That's the same as adding 1 to 1.5 more native cores (sans HT), but it's easier for Intel to implement HT in a 95w TDP (and makes for a smaller die).

KAj1v.png


Could they have squished-in a six-core 95w design with Ivy's reduced TDP of 77w? Perhaps, but it would have been pushing things. And Intel is right to push Hyperthreading before more physical cores: that performance improvement they get is wasted unless you add more threads to tap it, and letting a six-core processor waste 30% of it's potential is just sad.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top