New CPUs for 1155?

[PvP-ForLife]

I think we can all agree the Ivy Bridge chips are a total flop compared to the previous generation.
Was wondering if Intel will continue to release any future cpus for this platform.

 

[fishrule]

What exactly is the total flop? Equivalent performance at much lower power usage levels with added PCIE 3 support?

 

[PvP-ForLife]

What exactly is the total flop? Equivalent performance at much lower power usage levels with added PCIE 3 support?

Are we talking about mobile solutions? I think not, so the power consumption difference is insignificant (23W?), which is probably canceled by the fact you need a more powerful cooler since it runs hotter.
PCIE3 support is useless, wake up, 0 difference vs. PCIE2.

 

[jbean7457]

I recently just upgraded from a Q6600 to ivy bridge... way faster and cooler idle & load temps than my old cpu. So, naturally I don't agree with you that ivy is a flop.

But if I was upgrading from Sandy I would probably be dissapoint.

 

[colinstu]

But if I was upgrading from Sandy I would probably be dissapoint.

I don't know of a single person who would've had a much better time with the SB to IB upgrade. Very little to no performance increase only to get shittier thermals too. Not only that, but people who bought IB chipset mobos are gonna be boned when it comes to upgrading... IB is the end of the line for LGA1155. Haswell is going to be out on LGA1150... and LGA2011 too probably.

I went from an E6400 @ 3.2GHz to an i7-3820 @ 4.4ghz.... very happy with it. I'll jump on the 6-core Haswell LGA2011 boat when it comes... if it comes.

EDIT: I wouldn't call IB a "flop" ... but no one was expecting that much either. It's only a proof of concept from Intel that 22nm works (it does). Can't help they skimped and used TIM between the die and IHS instead of the usual solder. There aren't going to be any higher-end chips released either. There might be a slightly faster 3770k released (like the whole 2600k->2700k thing), other then that, it's only going to be cheaper SKUs.

 

[ShePearl]

PCIE3 support is useless, wake up, 0 difference vs. PCIE2.

Says who ?

 

[colinstu]

Says who ?

Agreed. That's like saying "SATA3 is useless" or "DDR3 is useless"....newer and faster interfaces allow for better things in the future. At the time being it might all seem a bit of a wash when it comes to speed improvements (as video cards right now aren't able to totally saturate the interface) but they will soon enough.

 

[Monkey God]

Some shedding tears over the tick? Wait for the tock then. And also, hardly a flop.

 

[AeonF1]

How do people consider a die shrink a total flop since this new process is the foundation for the next generation of CPUs.

 

[fishrule]

Are we talking about mobile solutions? I think not, so the power consumption difference is insignificant (23W?), which is probably canceled by the fact you need a more powerful cooler since it runs hotter.
PCIE3 support is useless, wake up, 0 difference vs. PCIE2.

Ivy was never meant to be a direct upgrade from Sandy. But if you own an older platform I think Ivy Bridge is the obviously superior choice. If you want to limit your long term videocard upgrade path because Ivy "sucks", go for it.

 

[Crazy Chuckster]

If not a flop is it a flip?

 

[drescherjm]

I think we can all agree the Ivy Bridge chips are a total flop compared to the previous generation.

I would think a minority of people think IB is a total flop.

And no IB is the last generation on lga1155 so this is it.

 

[ssnyder28]

IB is not a flop but its more cost effective to get SB still, but I just recently upgraded to SB so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

The way that things are looking right now in the first couple months of release of the 3rd generation Intel® Core™ processors we are 50% more processors out on the market then what we had on the 2nd generation Intel Core processors. So while many overclockers may not think that the 3rd generation is the best processor for them, almost everyone else believes that it is an outstanding processor.

 

[pelo]

The way that things are looking right now in the first couple months of release of the 3rd generation Intel® Core™ processors we are 50% more processors out on the market then what we had on the 2nd generation Intel Core processors. So while many overclockers may not think that the 3rd generation is the best processor for them, almost everyone else believes that it is an outstanding processor.

normally I wouldn't butt in here, but that's a pretty useless statistic considering you guys had a massive recall on the motherboards shortly after release that wasn't recognized and cleared up and solved for a period of months, and i'm not even sure that includes the flushing of pre-B3 revision boards.

Sorry, Chris

 

[defaultluser]

Spot-on pelo. Also, the biggest improvement surrounding Ivy Bridge is the mobile lineup, which is going to be officially released VERY soon. Here's a preview of the ULV platform:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5843/asus-zenbook-prime-ux21a-review

That should be pretty impressive when it's released.

I love the fact that SOME enthusiast overclockers actually think Intel cares about them. Intel cares enough to charge you extra for the unlock, but then you're on your own. They make no major efforts to improve overclocking on any CPU - that's up to the board OEM.

 

[SonDa5]

Not a flop.

Hopefully Intel will revise improve stepping on the K models. Also it would be great if Intel improved the IHS TIM cooling.

 

[extide]

Are we talking about mobile solutions? I think not, so the power consumption difference is insignificant (23W?), which is probably canceled by the fact you need a more powerful cooler since it runs hotter.

Lol, apparently you don't understand basic physics.

Ivy is not a total flop, lol, I can't believe that everyone is hating on Ivy so bad when its really a great chip!

And No, Haswell is the next chips out and they will be LGA 1150.

There may be slight revisions to Ivy that change things such as the solder, but who knows, maybe not.

Spot-on pelo. Also, the biggest improvement surrounding Ivy Bridge is the mobile lineup, which is going to be officially released VERY soon.

Mobile lineup has been out for a few weeks. There are plenty of people with Mobile Ivy in their hands already, and yes ity looks like a sweet platform.

 

[christpunchers]

Give us a revision with slightly higher clock speeds, and solder instead of TIM and I'm happy.

 

[grambo]

Are we talking about mobile solutions? I think not, so the power consumption difference is insignificant (23W?), which is probably canceled by the fact you need a more powerful cooler since it runs hotter.
PCIE3 support is useless, wake up, 0 difference vs. PCIE2.

No, you don't need a more powerful cooler, the chip puts out less total heat (consumes less power). The only negative to IB is the internal die itself runs hotter due to the smaller mfg process, so extreme overclockers (people wanting 5+GHz) are having more issues (exotic LN2 is better though).

Stop spreading FUD, should be a 30 day ban. And you could find out that Haswell is a new socket via wikipedia.

 

[ndt]

To me it's a small flop because they used TIM instead and I question the property changes of the TIM over some time and how effective it'll be at that point. Some people do keep their same build for quite some time.

 

[Kor]

Uses less power and runs quicker, so it runs a little warmer.... who cares. The thing has a massive thermal ceiling and the ability to push it to 5ghz doesn't really matter to 99% of the rest of the world. It's a great bit of kit, just not really a bump up from Sandy Bridge (at least not in the CPU department, IGP is a big jump).

Keen to see IB powered laptops entering the market soon.

 

[westrock2000]

Sorry I already got beat into submission with socket 1366. I'm used to it by now.

You guys got too comfortable with the 10 year socket 775 (which still had several "versions" over its lifetime).

Also don't forget that Ivy Bridge did bring much improved graphics. Maybe you [H] guys don't care, but for the general population Ivy Bridge will be a great performer.

 

[PvP-ForLife]

Agreed. That's like saying "SATA3 is useless" or "DDR3 is useless"....newer and faster interfaces allow for better things in the future. At the time being it might all seem a bit of a wash when it comes to speed improvements (as video cards right now aren't able to totally saturate the interface) but they will soon enough.

You will change your platform long before PCI 2.0 is saturated.

No, you don't need a more powerful cooler, the chip puts out less total heat (consumes less power). The only negative to IB is the internal die itself runs hotter due to the smaller mfg process, so extreme overclockers (people wanting 5+GHz) are having more issues (exotic LN2 is better though).

Stop spreading FUD, should be a 30 day ban. And you could find out that Haswell is a new socket via wikipedia.

You have no clue of simple physics and you are contradicting yourself in your post, on one side you're saying it does not run hotter, and on the other that it does. Even at regular overclocking levels(4.2-4.4 ghz), IB falls behind SB in terms on temperatures. If the truth hurts run along and fall to marketing schemes.

Uses less power and runs quicker, so it runs a little warmer.... who cares.

Less power - check
Quicker - false
Warmer - check

 

[M249SAW]

You will change your platform long before PCI 2.0 is saturated.



You have no clue of simple physics and you are contradicting yourself in your post, on one side you're saying it does not run hotter, and on the other that it does. Even at regular overclocking levels(4.2-4.4 ghz), IB falls behind SB in terms on temperatures. If the truth hurts run along and fall to marketing schemes.



Less power - check
Quicker - false
Warmer - check

I think this man covered all bases. The gentlemen who contradicted himself should take the liberty of uninstalling Internet Explorer.

 

[Tsumi]

You will change your platform long before PCI 2.0 is saturated.



You have no clue of simple physics and you are contradicting yourself in your post, on one side you're saying it does not run hotter, and on the other that it does. Even at regular overclocking levels(4.2-4.4 ghz), IB falls behind SB in terms on temperatures. If the truth hurts run along and fall to marketing schemes.



Less power - check
Quicker - false
Warmer - check

I think this man covered all bases. The gentlemen who contradicted himself should take the liberty of uninstalling Internet Explorer.

He did not contradict himself. He said puts out less heat, which it does. Which is also the same thing as using less power. The heat is more concentrated, so the temperature is higher.

You guys need to learn simple physics.

 

[PvP-ForLife]

He did not contradict himself. He said puts out less heat, which it does. Which is also the same thing as using less power. The heat is more concentrated, so the temperature is higher.
You guys need to learn simple physics.

Good job at explaining the obvious, you are only trying to justify the final result, which, at the end of the day is...SURPRISE...it puts out more heat.

 

[Tsumi]

Good job at explaining the obvious, you are only trying to justify the final result, which, at the end of the day is...SURPRISE...it puts out more heat.

/facepalm.

Do I have to spell it out for you? Since you don't seem to get it, I'll spell it out for you, since you can't read.

Temperature = average thermal energy
Heat = thermal energy

Temperature =/= Heat.

Joules = energy.
Watt = joules/second = heat being put out

Let's say we have 200 watts in 2 cubic centimeters. That gives us an average thermal energy of 100 watts per cubic centimeter. This is Sandy Bridge.

Then let's say we have 150 watts in 1 cubic centimeter. This gives us an average thermal energy of 150 watts per cubic centimeter. This is Ivy Bridge.

As you can see, Ivy Bridge puts out less heat. However, average thermal energy is higher, therefore it runs hotter.

 

[PvP-ForLife]

/facepalm.

Do I have to spell it out for you? Since you don't seem to get it, I'll spell it out for you, since you can't read.

Temperature = average thermal energy
Heat = thermal energy

Temperature =/= Heat.

Joules = energy.
Watt = joules/second = heat being put out

Let's say we have 200 watts in 2 cubic centimeters. That gives us an average thermal energy of 100 watts per cubic centimeter. This is Sandy Bridge.

Then let's say we have 150 watts in 1 cubic centimeter. This gives us an average thermal energy of 150 watts per cubic centimeter. This is Ivy Bridge.

As you can see, Ivy Bridge puts out less heat. However, average thermal energy is higher, therefore it runs hotter.

You don't have to spell anything, since obviously your math is treated at empirical levels and your reference systems are flawed.

Your post does nothing but sustain my arguments, the chip is a flop making it even less desirable for mobile solutions that can overheat easily. And as I stated before running hotter means a bigger/better heatsink/extra fans, which, overall will put you right at SB regarding consumption and under it regarding usefulness.

 

[Tsumi]

You don't have to spell anything, since obviously your math is treated at empirical levels and your reference systems are flawed.

Your post does nothing but sustain my arguments, the chip is a flop making it even less desirable for mobile solutions that can overheat easily. And as I stated before running hotter means a bigger/better heatsink/extra fans, which, overall will put you right at SB regarding consumption and under it regarding usefulness.

It runs cooler at stock voltages. That's been proven, haven't you been reading any reviews? The only time it runs hotter is when you start cranking up the voltage. The chip is nowhere near a flop.

Your argument was that IB puts out more heat, and the other guy was wrong for saying it puts out less heat. I am merely proving you wrong on that count, which, you are. And clearly, you do not like being proven wrong, can't you admit you made a mistake? No, instead you resort to attacking me.

 

[PGHammer]

IB is not a flop but its more cost effective to get SB still, but I just recently upgraded to SB so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

The only way it's cost effective to upgrade to Sandy Bridge as opposed to Ivy Bridge is under the following circumstances .

1. You are NOT buying from MicroCenter

AND

2. You are buying a non-K CPU OR you are looking to overclock past 4.5 GHz (i7-3770K's heatwall).

Sandy Bridge wins in the latter case because Ivy's advantages in terms of IPS/IPC are negated - Sandy wins in the first case due to MicroCenter's loss-leader stratagem on K-series CPUs (both Sandy and Ivy).

I live near two MicroCenters (same distance from Rockville and Fairfax - Fairfax has the lower tax bite), because the bundleage applies equally to i5-2500K (original choice) and i5-3570K (final choice) the price difference is $10. I'm not looking for tall overclocks (no gaming or other performance need) therefore energy savings are a factor (3570K wins vs. 2500K at same clocking there).

 

[grambo]

It runs cooler at stock voltages. That's been proven, haven't you been reading any reviews? The only time it runs hotter is when you start cranking up the voltage. The chip is nowhere near a flop.

Your argument was that IB puts out more heat, and the other guy was wrong for saying it puts out less heat. I am merely proving you wrong on that count, which, you are. And clearly, you do not like being proven wrong, can't you admit you made a mistake? No, instead you resort to attacking me.

Thanks for the backup, also you should report his posts, he is being wilfully ignorant and trolling.

 

[SH1]

You will change your platform long before PCI 2.0 is saturated.

GTX 680 is already faster on PCI 3.0. Check out Vega's results...

I plan to pair my new machine with a monster graphics card in the hopefully not too distant future. PCI 3.0 was a must....

 

[M249SAW]

On a 2.0 X8 slot, sure. But a x8 3.0 slot is the same as a x16 2.0 slot. Therefore I don't believe that there is a card that fully saturates a 2.0 x16 slot or x8 3.0.

Can't argue with that

Ivy Bridge is not a flop. I don't know where you got that from. Intel releases processor on a tick-tock schedule. This means that the tick is an architecture change which results in the largest increase in performance. This tick was Sandy Bridge which was a huge success and provided a substancial boost in performance, power consumption, manufacuring process and so many other new additions over the first generation Nehalem processors (LGA1155/1366). Now the target of the tock in Intel's cycle is to improve on the existing architecture. This is usually done by making tweaks to the current architecture using techniques such one example is going to a smaller die shrink manufacturing process. This would help with goals on the tock portion of the schedule like lowering power consumption, lowering manufacturing costs, and allows for an increase in transistor count. There are a few other tricks Intel has up their sleeves to improve on the initial architecture (tick).

Taking all this into account as well as what history tells us, consumers can expect roughly 10% IPC increase. I think a good example of this is the transition from Core (Tick) to Penryn (Tock). Core is the first set of Core 2 Duo Conroe and Core 2 Quad Kentsfield aka Q6600. When Penryn was released, it wasn't intended to be revolutionary. It made minor tweaks to the initial core architecture to create a 45nm part that ran cooler, increased stock frequency, and provided a noticable 10% or so increase in overall peformance. Overclocking capability and potential was increased as well. Most are familiar with these Tock processors as Wolfdale dual and Yorkfield quad aka Q9550.

This leads me to say that we shouldn't expect this every single time. Although the development of technology has slowed down over the past decade or so, I will reiterate again that Sandy Bridge was a huge success for multiple reasons I could go on and on about. But an integral part of the success was Intel's ability to integrate the IPC increase and all the other goodies I could go on about we all expect on a Tick AS WELL as create the Core i5 2500K that at about $200 blew away anything AMD had to offer and provided the same gaming experience as the more expensive i7 part with 2mb additional cache and Hyperthreading. With Sandy Bridge being the success that it is, why deviate? Those genius' at Intel know what they are doing by following the tick-tock schedule they set out. Ivy Bridge isn't as large of an increase from Core to Penryn, but it is still an increase and brings other improvements to the table such as the die shrink. Just because Intel made a decision on how to attach the heatspreader does not mean it is a failure. Just because it runs hotter doesn't mean it uses more power. Besides some claiming to have reduced overclocking potential, these are the only legitimate "complaints" I have heard about Ivy. So I can end this rant, I will say the pro's heavily outweigh the cons. Ivy Bridge is a superior processor to Sandy Bridge, therefore how is it a failure.

If you need an example of a failed line of processors enter AMD FX into google and read some benchmarks. Don't get confused with the Skt939 FX processors. Those were from when AMD knew how to make a microprocessor to be proud of.

 

[M249SAW]

GTX 680 is already faster on PCI 3.0. Check out Vega's results...

I plan to pair my new machine with a monster graphics card in the hopefully not too distant future. PCI 3.0 was a must....

I have seen Vega's results, but simple logic and this data proves otherwise: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling/23.html

PCI-E 3.0 x16/x8-x8 SLI/X-Fire is going to be a common multi gpu configuration. This amount of bandwidth is the same as a PCI-E 2.0 x16-x16/x8 configuration which is standard on most enthusiast platforms. Condsidering that the configuration I noted first what is likely to host a GTX 680 SLI setup, your assumption that the bandwidth provided by PCI-E 2.0 doesn't provide sufficent bandwidth or that PCI-E 3.0 is "faster" is incorrect. According to verified results I provided in the link, you gain a 1% performance increase over PCI-E 3.0 x8/PCI-E 2.0 x16 which I noted earlier are the same speed in terms of bandwidth. Also what I had assumed proved to be true as well that PCI-E 2.0 x8 would provide sufficient bandwidth for the GTX 680 or HD 7970 as well.

 

[chronicfx]

My 3570k is rock stable right now at 4.7 and I don't see temps higher than 60 when gaming. It will handle my gaming needs for just as long as any sandy chip will.. In fact longer because as generations of cards change your 2.0 WILL matter. Everyone says now now now... There is no difference now now now.... What about 3 years from now when the GTX980 comes are your SLI x8 slots gonna cut it? HELL NO! I think it makes no sense to buy a sandy now.

 

[Tsumi]

My 3570k is rock stable right now at 4.7 and I don't see temps higher than 60 when gaming. It will handle my gaming needs for just as long as any sandy chip will.. In fact longer because as generations of cards change your 2.0 WILL matter. Everyone says now now now... There is no difference now now now.... What about 3 years from now when the GTX980 comes are your SLI x8 slots gonna cut it? HELL NO! I think it makes no sense to buy a sandy now.

As said above... 3 years from now you would have most likely upgraded platforms. Since only the top end cards will be able to actually use that bandwidth, the people that buy top end cards are usually upgrading at least every other year.

The point I try to make to people is this: If PCI-E 3.0 is included in the hardware you buy, great. If not, don't worry about it. Don't make PCI-E 3.0 a primary decision maker in the hardware you choose to buy.

 

[M249SAW]

My 3570k is rock stable right now at 4.7 and I don't see temps higher than 60 when gaming. It will handle my gaming needs for just as long as any sandy chip will.. In fact longer because as generations of cards change your 2.0 WILL matter. Everyone says now now now... There is no difference now now now.... What about 3 years from now when the GTX980 comes are your SLI x8 slots gonna cut it? HELL NO! I think it makes no sense to buy a sandy now.

I never said that your 3570K wasn't great for gaming. Someone else in the thread was complaining that Ivy wasn't what it was marked up to be. If you read my wall of text completely I simply stated that after the amount of performance you can get from a SB chip is astounding and that Ivy Bridge is a TOCK processor. This means that it is a minor improvement over Sandy Bridge, not slower. Saying this, where and why did I recommend to buy a SB chip. I don't recall.

As far as the PCI-E slots are concerned, in three years by gods grace I will be running a LGA1150 system with native SATA 6gb/s, fully native USB 3.0, PCI-E 3.0 and Thunderbolt. Even so look at the data I posted. Even PCI-E 1.1 x16 provides enough bandwidth for these cards. Considering that PCI-E 3.0 x8 which you will be running with an Ivy Bridge CPU is equal to a PCI-E 2.0 x16 slot in terms of bandwidth. Yes, for the GTX 980, PCI-E 2.0 X16 should be sufficient without a noticable performance decrease.

 

[chronicfx]

I think we can all agree the Ivy Bridge chips are a total flop compared to the previous generation.
Was wondering if Intel will continue to release any future cpus for this platform.

Sorry, that wasn't at u M2. I was pretty much responding to PVP. I have no complaints for my ivy so far and "flop" would never leave my mouth when speaking of it.

 

[chronicfx]

I never said that your 3570K wasn't great for gaming. Someone else in the thread was complaining that Ivy wasn't what it was marked up to be. If you read my wall of text completely I simply stated that after the amount of performance you can get from a SB chip is astounding and that Ivy Bridge is a TOCK processor. This means that it is a minor improvement over Sandy Bridge, not slower. Saying this, where and why did I recommend to buy a SB chip. I don't recall.

As far as the PCI-E slots are concerned, in three years by gods grace I will be running a LGA1150 system with native SATA 6gb/s, fully native USB 3.0, PCI-E 3.0 and Thunderbolt. Even so look at the data I posted. Even PCI-E 1.1 x16 provides enough bandwidth for these cards. Considering that PCI-E 3.0 x8 which you will be running with an Ivy Bridge CPU is equal to a PCI-E 2.0 x16 slot in terms of bandwidth. Yes, for the GTX 980, PCI-E 2.0 X16 should be sufficient without a noticable performance decrease.

I wasn' talking about 2.0x16.. Noone questions that 2.0x16 is enough, but all of these slots turn into 2.0x8 when you add a second card. The "few percent" bottleneck will only increase as the bandwidth gets better with these cards. I personally think the GTX685 is gonna hurl on your motherboard if you put it in a 2.0x8 slot... Don't kid yourself, the bottleneck is coming sooner than later.