Going to go ahead and call shenanagins on that one lol.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Ivy Bridge TDP of 95W instead of the promised 77W ...
- Thread starter lobstar
- Start date
Going to go ahead and call shenanagins on that one lol.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,825
As quoted from the article:
"We saw the samples of Core i7-3770K going from 3.5 GHz to a massive 7.06 GHz clock. By raising voltage to 1.889 Volts, using 63x multiplier and 112.11 MHz and using dry ice - the 22nm beast passed 7000 MHz."
Crazy/destructive Vcore, dry ice, 'nuff said...
That I knew I'm just wondering what the hell he meant?
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
To me that is kind of meaningless since they were running it at almost double the stock voltage and using exotic unsustainable cooling.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
I expected that. Just trying to clarify for those who did not know..
One of those boot to desktop and take a quick snapshot of cpuz! Try running Prime or IBT with that...
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1714700655){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,954
Exacltly, it's THERMAL DESIGN Power.
It's intent is to tell OEM's how beefy a cooler they are going to need. It was never intended to be a measure of power consumption.
Chip manufacturers test how much heat dissipation a particular design needs to remain stable within the specified ambient operating temperatures. If they later make a more power efficient version of a chip, they may or may not test it again and adjust the TDP, choosing instead to leave the TDP high, using the logic, if a cooler is sufficient to cool a 125W TDP chip, then it should be sufficient to cool this improved less than 125W TDP chip, so we'll leave the TDP the same.
They usually only update TDP if there is a real need. For instance if a large OEAM wants to use a low power chip in a really small case, where a large cooler doesn't fit, then the chip manufacturer may go through testing a rate a lower TDP.
Remember TDP is all about "is my heatsink and fan big enough" and really is a poor measure of actual power use, due to this.
^^ What he said is 100% accurate. The TDP is bumped up due to the issues with heat dissipation at 22nm transistor density with IVB rather than higher or equal power consumption. But what should be mentioned is that power consumption does go up with higher temperatures, therefore the statement gets a little foggier. It's one of the reasons AMD puts a conservative 125W TDP on their chips rather than going lower.
The power consumption isn't the issue here at all but rather the heat dissipation.
The power consumption isn't the issue here at all but rather the heat dissipation.
Its already been out for more then a year is what I was getting at. You said you wanted to wait for it to mature. Its going to be very mature when its finally implemented. Thats what I was getting at.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,825
It's already mature, as the JEDEC spec has been finalized for quite some time, iirc. What we're talking about is not the technology itself becoming mature, but the adoption, availability, and use becoming widespread. When that happens, DDR4 will be affordable. But that's not going to be the case when the first DDR4 capable systems initially emerge.
I never said anything about DDR4...I was just wondering what your vague comment meant?
There are no commercial available products yet so it is not already out...unless it's a niche/test product there are no processors capable of running DDR4 yet.
True and I read that. So I guess a 100% OC is common with dry ice? I never really paid attention to this exotic practice.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,775
Dry ice doesn't make too much sense, since it's a solid and as such won't have as much surface area to transfer heat. Liquid Nitrogen makes more sense.
The concept is the same as with LN2 - they fill the heatsink tube thing with dry ice instead of LN2. It isn't as efficient as LN2, but still works plenty well. The benefit to dry ice is that it is cheap, easy to handle (relatively), and sublimates directly to a gas so you don't have to worry about moisture (except condensation). Doesn't get as cold as LN2 but still gets cold enough, and is much easier to deal with.
I'm really not disappointed for a 'tick'. Excellent processor, nothing wrong with it:
-Roughly 5-15% additional performance at the same clock speed/price point.
-On-die graphics processor improvement over Sandy Bridge is roughly 20-40%
-PCI Express 3.0 support (which makes the socket 2011 platform almost irrelevant).
-Much improved memory controller, which now supports DDR3L and DDR3-1600.
-Thanks to the 22nm process and Tri-gate transistors, very power efficient.
The 95W TDP is mostly a strategic decision of Intel, as said in this article, not necessarily because Ivy Bridge actually uses that much power. In fact, it uses a lot less and is very power efficient. See this AnandTech preview of the Core i7 3770K.
-Roughly 5-15% additional performance at the same clock speed/price point.
-On-die graphics processor improvement over Sandy Bridge is roughly 20-40%
-PCI Express 3.0 support (which makes the socket 2011 platform almost irrelevant).
-Much improved memory controller, which now supports DDR3L and DDR3-1600.
-Thanks to the 22nm process and Tri-gate transistors, very power efficient.
The 95W TDP is mostly a strategic decision of Intel, as said in this article, not necessarily because Ivy Bridge actually uses that much power. In fact, it uses a lot less and is very power efficient. See this AnandTech preview of the Core i7 3770K.
[X]eltic;1038624881 said:
It's hard to read your post when your first paragraph states there is, "nothing wrong with it."
Sure, it might be your opinion...but on this site, in this niche of computer users, the ability to dispel heat and overclock effectively matters a lot.
This chip looks great for laptops and builds where a GPU isn't warranted, but that actually is not the majority of posters on this forum.
ShuttleLuv
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2003
- Messages
- 7,295
Looks like half assed excuses from intel, looks like the marketing department got worried and devised a plan to change all product to 95w TPD just to get by this one. The chip has already been proven to run hotter when marginally overclocked (4.5/4.6), we need to see some real reviews yes, but I just can't help but smell a quasi BD on this one. Don't let intel fool you. The guys over at XS have seen actual ES samples that were TRULY 77w and they are the ones that hit 6-7 ghz.
http://www.techpowerup.com/164411/C...-95W-Overclocks-Worse-Than-Sandy-Bridge-.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/164411/C...-95W-Overclocks-Worse-Than-Sandy-Bridge-.html
Last edited:
Why do you have to speak for everyone on this forum? You certainly do not speak for me. Give your own opinion instead. You obviously have no proof that the majority here wants Ivy Bridge to be an incredible overclocker, that's just wild speculation. Computer enthusiasts come in many different flavors, not just hardcore overclockers. I'm personally interested in power efficiency and Ivy Bridge really suits my needs.
Besides, I'm not even convinced that Ivy Bridge really is a bad overclocker. We've seen just a few anecdotal reports on the internet so far and there haven't been any professional reviews. And if this report is true, Ivy Bridge is capable of a 100 percent overclock. Admittedly, that's with extreme cooling, but even so, it's nothing to scoff at. Also realise that Sandy Bridge is 5-15% behind at the same clock speed from the start.
The Bulldozer comparisons are laughable. Bulldozer was a lemon, Ivy Bridge really isn't. Especially if you consider that it's not a new architecture, it's just a 'tick'.
Tup3x
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,942
Mmm... I'll be getting 3770K when it's released (I'm side stepping since my current stuff goes to other machine that needs better hardware). My 2600K does 4,3 GHz with ease and stays really cool. I hope that I can do the same with 3770K without ridiculous temperatures; I'm going to use True Spirit as cooler this time too.
And who says it doesn't? It's all speculation and some anecdotal reports (and they are not all bad!) and the 95W TDP has a perfectly reasonable explanation. See this article. Also read this AnandTech preview, which shows that the Core i7 3770K is very power efficient and doesn't even come close to using 95 watt. Furthermore, people have to realise that Ivy Bridge is roughly 5-15% faster than a similarly clocked Sandy Bridge, so even if the rumors are true that Ivy Bridge doesn't clock as good - and I seriously doubt it - it will still be the faster chip. Ivy Bridge at 4.6GHz will beat Sandy Bridge at 5.0GHz. And on top of that, Ivy Bridge brings many other improvements as well (better on-die GPU, better memory controller, better PCI Express controller, etcetera).He can speak for me.
Ive been following this thread along with many others about the speculation about whats going on. Ive decided to wait till the [H] gets there hands on one and goes through there tests, along with other sites. If its really that big of an issue for temp and overclocking. worst case scenario I go with a 2600K and save some hard earned cash. Sucks waiting for such a long time for this to come out (still on a E8400) but only time will tell. Need some [H]ard facts of whats going on. (and im sure the [H]ard OCP crew and the rest are following this and will put the new chip through the ringer to get a final conclusion)
[X]eltic;1038625255 said:
I could careless about the reasoning behind why Intel is branding IB as 95W TDP even though it is still only using a maximum of 77W.
What I care about is how poorly the heat is scaling with overclocking. There are plenty of reports and leaked reviews floating out on the internet right now, not all anecdotal and speculation. Feel free to google them.
I get that ivy bridge will have better IPC than sandy bridge and will yield better performance clock for clock. Stating that it is 5-15% faster than SB is also speculation and anecdotal based on your own argument, is it not?
Do you mean this guy? He provides no proof at all and is getting destroyed in that very thread by people that actually have an Ivy Bridge sample (e.g. FUGGER).
Unless the Core i7 3770K that AnandTech had is not representative of the retail version, that's the expectation.Stating that it is 5-15% faster than SB is also speculation and anecdotal based on your own argument, is it not?
Xeltic, take a look at this thread on AT. Two guys bought two different chips and they both reported much the same issues with heat being a limiting factor in OCing, particularly past 4.6ghz. Both chips are now being advertised on the FS/FT =P
I do agree with you, though. IVB is better in nearly every single way when compared to SB, unfortunately overclocking doesn't seem to be one of those ways.
I do agree with you, though. IVB is better in nearly every single way when compared to SB, unfortunately overclocking doesn't seem to be one of those ways.
But even if rumors are true, the way I see it:
-Regular consumers -> Ivy Bridge
-Moderate overclockers -> Ivy Bridge
-Enthusiast overclockers -> Sandy Bridge
-Hardcore overclockers -> Ivy Bridge
If you're not into overclocking Ivy Bridge is obviously the better chip, and if you're just interested in a moderate overclock you will not run into any overclock limitations and Ivy Bridge still wins. If you want to reach >5GHz on air/water you might run into a 'heat barrier' with Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge is the better choice. If you're into extreme liquid nitrogen overclocking, however, it seems it's possible to overcome the 'heat barrier' and Ivy Bridge starts to massively pull ahead (up to 7GHz).
But you are right, let's wait and see!
-Regular consumers -> Ivy Bridge
-Moderate overclockers -> Ivy Bridge
-Enthusiast overclockers -> Sandy Bridge
-Hardcore overclockers -> Ivy Bridge
If you're not into overclocking Ivy Bridge is obviously the better chip, and if you're just interested in a moderate overclock you will not run into any overclock limitations and Ivy Bridge still wins. If you want to reach >5GHz on air/water you might run into a 'heat barrier' with Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge is the better choice. If you're into extreme liquid nitrogen overclocking, however, it seems it's possible to overcome the 'heat barrier' and Ivy Bridge starts to massively pull ahead (up to 7GHz).
But you are right, let's wait and see!
SolidSnakeUS
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,282
I just want real specs, real benchmarks, real facts. It's kind of killing me right now considering I don't even know if I should go for IB or SB. IB has some nicer updates from SB, but if it really does run too hot, power isn't very good, and OC's worse than SB, then I might go for SB. Dunno... just want to figure this all out...
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,775
Here's what's it's looking like so far:
Temps are worse due to the new 3D transistor design and smaller 22nm process (based on lots of rumors/leaked results). Temps could also be a byproduct of an immature 22nm process and immature 3D design.
Power consumption is better due to 3D transistors and 22nm process (same as above).
Overclocking is worse due to temps, 3D transistors, and 22nm process (doesn't take to high voltages very well unless kept cold, reasons also same as above).
Overall performance will be equivalent to Sandy Bridge or better than Sandy Bridge at max overclocks due to an IPC advantage for Ivy Bridge. Benchmarks have shown that Ivy Bridge can have up to 10% more performance at the same clock speed as compared to Sandy Bridge. This of course depends on the application used.
Temps are worse due to the new 3D transistor design and smaller 22nm process (based on lots of rumors/leaked results). Temps could also be a byproduct of an immature 22nm process and immature 3D design.
Power consumption is better due to 3D transistors and 22nm process (same as above).
Overclocking is worse due to temps, 3D transistors, and 22nm process (doesn't take to high voltages very well unless kept cold, reasons also same as above).
Overall performance will be equivalent to Sandy Bridge or better than Sandy Bridge at max overclocks due to an IPC advantage for Ivy Bridge. Benchmarks have shown that Ivy Bridge can have up to 10% more performance at the same clock speed as compared to Sandy Bridge. This of course depends on the application used.
Wow blown away, cannot believe people are making purchase decisions on their drive home based on this article with so many variables and unknowns. Geez we waited this long, let’s just hang in there a few more days until the retail versions get into the hands of some reputable reviewers, and better yet some [H]ard member posted O/C results. Now ya got me freaking out and I don’t freak out. Well not too often!
Let's just create a tread so the early Ivy adopters can post their overclock speeds and thermals right after launch, rather see those numbers than any more premature reviews.
Let's just create a tread so the early Ivy adopters can post their overclock speeds and thermals right after launch, rather see those numbers than any more premature reviews.
Last edited:
And even if the issue *is* as bad as feared, all that would mean is that we need better cooling (which is hardly expensive - if anything, the cost of such cooling has dropped, not risen).
Are you implying that the CM Hyper212+ or EVO (both popular air-coolers among the [H]orde) or even the Corsair H60 can't deal with a 95W TDP when all three have proven track records dealing with far higher TDPs than 95W? Please - you certainly can't be implying that!
The H60 is the most expensive (while $79.99 direct from Corsair, it's $59.99 everyday-priced at MicroCenter). The Hyper212+ is $29.99 and Hyper212 EVO is $7 more, also at MicroCenter. Why am I looking at the H60, given that the Hyper212+ is $30 less? Clearance issues between the top of the cooler and the side of the case (in the case of both the 212+ and EVO - and these are two mid-tower ATX cases). Meanwhile, the H60 takes up no more room than a standard HSF and standard rear 120mm case fan (one mid-tower case has such a fan - the other does not, but has a mount bracket for one) - in fact, the cooling plate uses less height than the standard Intel HSF (let alone the tower air-coolers, such as the Hyper212).
The current rear-mounted 120mm fan (which the H60's fan+radiator will replace) will simply be moved to the front (and a PULL configuration), while the case for BridgeWalker (either the existing mid-tower or a CM HAF-912) will get a new 120mm fan front-mounted.
Please - even worst-case, the heat CAN be dealt with, and without spending a mint.
PG, just a thought but why don't you put that 120mm on the front/back of the H60 and get a push/pull configuration? You might be able to run the fans on low and get even better cooling. Just buy a new fan for the front panel then...just a though, not sure of the H60 can do the push/pull config anyways.
[X]eltic;1038625038 said:
I didn't realize that you were going to parse my post.
1. The majority of posters in this thread, and in this section of the forum have spoken out that overclocking matters to them. So does power efficiency. But try to remember this is {H}ardforum. Sure, this is unscientific evidence, but frankly it is far better than any evidence you have as to the forum's feelings.
2. Ivy Bridge may be a fine overclocker. Multiple review sites could be lying to us. You could be experiencing cognitive dissonance.
But please do better than posting a silly report of Ivy Bridge overclocking on dry ice. You and all the dry ice in the world can be happy, but for those of us who want to run an overclock for any length of time without wearing heavy duty gloves, IB looks pretty dubious because it can't dissipate heat effectively.
That's been well discussed, but believe what you will.
Paradoxex, you're once again speaking for the majority on this forum. Why is it so hard to give your own opinion only? You have no proof that the majority here wants Ivy Bridge to be an incredible overclocker. As I've said before, computer enthusiasts come in many different flavors and not everyone is interested in super high overclocks. Some people prefer rock solid stability, and others prefer power efficiency. And you've misunderstood me as well. I'm not saying that Ivy Bridge is a good overclocker, I'm saying that we don't know that yet. Let's wait for professional reviews first. As of now, it's all wild speculation, dubious forum posts and people jumping to conclusions since Ivy Bridge has a TDP of 95 watt.
If IB can't OC quite as high because of heat but still offers the same performance at lower clock speeds in addition to retaining its other benefits then it's a better cpu. Granted, it may not be as good as many of us would have hoped, but for those that don't have either CPU and are looking to upgrade, IB is the better option unless you can snag one of the $200 microcenter deals on SB.
You'd earn some more credibility without the dumb comments like "heavy duty gloves" which make zero sense.