News on Ivy Bridge-E?

[skipsneeky2]

Originally Posted by gramboh

Only problem with that is you have a short upgrade path with IB-E. Except in corner cases, for desktop use you would most likely be better served (and save a lot of money/power) with Haswell which is not that far off now. Q6600 was legendary price/performance I agree, I had a Q6700 up until IB launch day.

Actually coming up in Jan,i will more then likely be picking up a 3770k,a clean z77 mobo and just check out how far i could take it and i will just sit on it for a few years.

Got currently a locked down i5 2500 non k on a h61 mobo,gifting this to a friend of the family who seriously needs and deserves a upgrade.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by Lepton87

What makes you think that haswell will OC better? It's a wider core, why would a wider core OC better unless they deepen the pipeline? Besides, I think IVY-E would be 8 core even for a consumer version, not 6 cores like cut-down 1000$ consumer CPU. It's atrocious that they cut-down 1000$ EE CPUs. Don't forget that SB-E is already 8 core CPU.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention on-die VRMs circuitry, they can make those circuitry handle only 20-40% more power than a stock haswell needs effectively hampering OC to a massive degree. It's not to make our life harder, we're too small a market for them to care. The reason for that would be to cut cost. See poor Ivy-bridge TIM. Does it work for 99.5% of their market? Yes it does. Does it save them money? Yes, it does. So why would they care about us overclockers?

I think we heard that story since Core 2. Lynnfield will be locked down, Sandy will be locked down, OC worse and blah blah.

[Makaveli]

Originally Posted by AdamK47

Who in their right mind would use a pricey socket 2011 CPU over a socket 1155 CPU anyway? A damn fool, that's who. 1155 is better than 2011 for various reasons. Most of which will soon be addressed in this thread.

lol adam at the end of the day you will be the one laughing you will be able to drop IVY-E in your board and will now have a faster cpu than anything on 1155!

[Grooveriding]

About the PCIE 3.0, my understanding is that AMD cards work on X79 with full PCIE 3.0 support out of the box. Nvidia cards do not. You have to use a driver hack or run a small program to enable PCIE 3.0 with nvidia 6XX cards on X79. Nvidia doesn't warrant or support it either.

My motherboard clearly supports PCIE 3.0 on the box and with my CPU. Some people can get PCIE 3.0 running fine with it, others can't. My cards are working fine with PCIE 3.0 enabled.

About IVB-E. Most worthless chip release coming up imo. Intel is screwing over their -E customers with these heavily delayed releases. Given the minimal difference between a SB and IB CPU, IVB-E is going to look awful with Haswell already on the market. The one thing it could have going for it would be for Intel to not use the same crappy interface material under the IHS and use solder instead. Otherwise no way I want to run a 6 core IVB-E with its higher TDP amplifying the current thermal characteristics of overclocked IB.

Also, SB-E was not exactly flawless. Intel pulled a bait and switch with the specs of SB-E, originally advertising it as supporting a feature it did not and then pulling it after the chips were already being sold.

[Ferzerp]

I am partially inclined to agree with you. The -E series sort of is geared towards the "moar cores" mentality which really only helps with very, very, very few applications.

*However*, when you take that the -E processors are somewhat of a byproduct of the Xeon product line, you have to ask yourself, "Why not release them?"

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by Grooveriding

About the PCIE 3.0, my understanding is that AMD cards work on X79 with full PCIE 3.0 support out of the box. Nvidia cards do not. You have to use a driver hack or run a small program to enable PCIE 3.0 with nvidia 6XX cards on X79. Nvidia doesn't warrant or support it either.

My motherboard clearly supports PCIE 3.0 on the box and with my CPU. Some people can get PCIE 3.0 running fine with it, others can't. My cards are working fine with PCIE 3.0 enabled.

About IVB-E. Most worthless chip release coming up imo. Intel is screwing over their -E customers with these heavily delayed releases. Given the minimal difference between a SB and IB CPU, IVB-E is going to look awful with Haswell already on the market. The one thing it could have going for it would be for Intel to not use the same crappy interface material under the IHS and use solder instead. Otherwise no way I want to run a 6 core IVB-E with its higher TDP amplifying the current thermal characteristics of overclocked IB.

Also, SB-E was not exactly flawless. Intel pulled a bait and switch with the specs of SB-E, originally advertising it as supporting a feature it did not and then pulling it after the chips were already being sold.

About PCIe 3.0 on your CPU:
http://ark.intel.com/products/63697/...up-to-3_80-GHz

PCI Express Revision
2.0

And again for Intel "screwing" customers. No, its about validation.

[tynopik]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

And again for Intel "screwing" customers. No, its about validation.

I have some lovely land in Flordia to sell you

Once Haswell comes out, SB-E will be TWO GENERATIONS behind. If you think that's solely driven by 'validation', well . . .

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by tynopik

I have some lovely land in Flordia to sell you

Remember to take on your tinfoil hat.

No new product = no upgrades = no sales.

Not something a company do on purpose is it?

[boxleitnerb]

Originally Posted by Lepton87

What makes you think that haswell will OC better? It's a wider core, why would a wider core OC better unless they deepen the pipeline? Besides, I think IVY-E would be 8 core even for a consumer version, not 6 cores like cut-down 1000$ consumer CPU. It's atrocious that they cut-down 1000$ EE CPUs. Don't forget that SB-E is already 8 core CPU.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention on-die VRMs circuitry, they can make those circuitry handle only 20-40% more power than a stock haswell needs effectively hampering OC to a massive degree. It's not to make our life harder, we're too small a market for them to care. The reason for that would be to cut cost. See poor Ivy-bridge TIM. Does it work for 99.5% of their market? Yes it does. Does it save them money? Yes, it does. So why would they care about us overclockers?

Ivy-E will only have 6 cores, that much is confirmed. I could imagine Haswell overclocks better due to a more mature 22nm process. I believe Intel will be quite conservative with clocks again. Just a hunch.

[tynopik]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

Remember to take on your tinfoil hat.

No new product = no upgrades = no sales.

Not something a company do on purpose is it?

um, you clearly have no understanding how the market works

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by tynopik

um, you clearly have no understanding how the market works

Why dont you explain to me the economic rationale in delaying a product on purpose in the semiconductor industry.

[tynopik]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

Why dont you explain to me the economic rationale in delaying a product on purpose in the semiconductor industry.

because they have zero competition

Most sales are coming from people who need NEW servers regardless. There are SOME extra sales that would be generated by having newer/faster procs out there, but you are clearly overestimating it. 90+% of the sales are going to happen regardless of what garbage Intel offers.

Here's a riddle for you. Given that:
1. New products are NOT introduced at higher price points than older products
2. Intel is focused on increasing PROFIT

How can Intel increase profit without increasing the price?

Answer: Decreasing the cost.

How does Intel decrease the cost? By not investing in a new generation of chips and milking their current investment as long as possible.

You've seen the Intel rep on here admitting that they like products to last at least a year so they and their partners can recoup their investment. And with no competition to offer an alternative, they can stretch that even longer. The longer a product lasts, the more profitable it is. This isn't rocket science and this isn't a 'conspiracy', it's basic economics.

Intel has very little incentive to push out a new generation while the current generation continues to rack up the sales.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by tynopik

because they have zero competition

Most sales are coming from people who need NEW servers regardless. There are SOME extra sales that would be generated by having newer/faster procs out there, but you are clearly overestimating it. 90+% of the sales are going to happen regardless of what garbage Intel offers.

Here's a riddle for you. Given that:
1. New products are NOT introduced at higher price points than older products
2. Intel is focused on increasing PROFIT

How can Intel increase profit without increasing the price?

Answer: Decreasing the cost.

How does Intel decrease the cost? By not investing in a new generation of chips and milking their current investment as long as possible.

You've seen the Intel rep on here admitting that they like products to last at least a year so they and their partners can recoup their investment. And with no competition to offer an alternative, they can stretch that even longer. The longer a product lasts, the more profitable it is. This isn't rocket science and this isn't a 'conspiracy', it's basic economics.

Intel has very little incentive to push out a new generation while the current generation continues to rack up the sales.

Obvious you must think people buy the same volume of CPUs nomatter the innovation and changes. Thats the first flaw. Competition basicly have nothing to do in a market where you need to sell customers something new, or they stay with the old and keep their money in their pocket. No 22nm IB Xeons means no upgrades from 32nm Xeons.

22nm chips are cheaper to produce than 32nm chips. Thats a direct economic incentive for Intel to sell you 22nm Xeons. Not to mention its easier to bin 22nm chips contra 32nm. Hence a flaw in your decreasing cost factor. Second flaw in your logic.

Intels profit depends on volume and margin. Both contradict the logic that Intel should hold IB Xeons back for economic reasons. Third flaw!

If you want the latest and greatest, then stick to the socket where thats possible (LGA11xx). LGA2011 "enthutiast" desktops is merely a bastard product.

Intel have every single economic interest in pushing out a new generation. Also hence we got the tick/tock strategy with yearly updates as you actually refer to. However in a segment where flaws aint tolerated (server segment.). The extra validation is needed to make sure of that. Just look at AMD how it went with the TLB bug for example.

Its the typical nonsense when people think they are cheated from something they feel entitled to. Something not even designed for their segment. No different than the people that think they get cheated because they cant buy 8 core desktops for basicly no money.

[tynopik]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

Obvious you must think people buy the same volume of CPUs nomatter the innovation and changes. Thats the first flaw.

It's close enough to the truth for this case.

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

Competition basicly have nothing to do in a market where you need to sell customers something new, or they stay with the old and keep their money in their pocket. No 22nm IB Xeons means no upgrades from 32nm Xeons.

nobody (ok, very few) is going to upgrade from sandy bridge xeons to ivy bridge xeons, the incremental differences are too small

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

22nm chips are cheaper to produce than 32nm chips. Thats a direct economic incentive for Intel to sell you 22nm Xeons.

pray tell what they are supposed to do with their 32nm fabs?

should they just shutter them? OR should they continue to produce PROFITABLE products at them?

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

Intels profit depends on volume and margin. Both contradict the logic that Intel should hold IB Xeons back for economic reasons. Third flaw!

sorry, those arguments actually work against you. think about it

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

Intel have every single economic interest in pushing out a new generation.

for mainstream products where they're facing intense pressure from the mobile front, absolutely, which is why you see them executing

on the server/enthusiast side, not so much.

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

However in a segment where flaws aint tolerated (server segment.). The extra validation is needed to make sure of that.

They've done the same validation before, yet they've never been 2 generations behind. Has Intel suddenly gotten incompetent? Can they no longer validate in a reasonable time like they used to?

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

Its the typical nonsense when people think they are cheated from something they feel entitled to.

Intel is doing what they feel best protects their margins. The only nonsense is thinking they would do anything else.

[cytg111]

Originally Posted by tynopik

..Intel is doing what they feel best protects their margins. The only nonsense is thinking they would do anything else.

I applaud your engagement, but you're fighting a battle uphill, applying logic where there is none will fail no matter how many times you try. At some point you gotta stop feeding the trolls.

[Ajay]

Originally Posted by tynopik

pray tell what they are supposed to do with their 32nm fabs?

should they just shutter them? OR should they continue to produce PROFITABLE products at them?

I know in the recent Interview the CFO of Intel said it was going to convert a bunch of fabs over to 22nm.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by Ajay

I know in the recent Interview the CFO of Intel said it was going to convert a bunch of fabs over to 22nm.

Yep, and some 14nm.

http://download.intel.com/newsroom/k..._FactSheet.pdf

The big conspiracy...

[Lepton87]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

I think we heard that story since Core 2. Lynnfield will be locked down, Sandy will be locked down, OC worse and blah blah.

What a worthless reply. You just ignored my valid points and provided examples that invalidated my other points but that was in the past. It's not a reasoned reply, if you have nothing to say, you would do us all a favor and don't bother posting at all. Since Conroe intel architectures have had 6 execution ports, haswell bums that up to 8. We have never had that situation before, have we? How do you know that it will not only hinder OC but even allow the whole design to clock faster?

Ivy-E will only have 6 cores, that much is confirmed. I could imagine Haswell overclocks better due to a more mature 22nm process. I believe Intel will be quite conservative with clocks again. Just a hunch.

By the time Hasswell hits the market 22nm will be a very mature process. How much Intel managed to increase clockspeed from gulftown to SB-E? Not much, but that was different. SB has a longer integer pipeline than westmere and when it comes to IV-E comparison to haswell the situation looks reversed, haswell has a wider core, that must have some effect on clock-speed potential. Stock clock speed will certainly not decrease because unlike AMD intel has much headroom left which could be used-up in haswell.

BTW. Do we know how many pipeline stages will haswell have?

[Intel17]

Originally Posted by Lepton87

BTW. Do we know how many pipeline stages will haswell have?

Same as Sandy Bridge.

[Ajay]

Originally Posted by boxleitnerb

Ivy-E will only have 6 cores, that much is confirmed. I could imagine Haswell overclocks better due to a more mature 22nm process. I believe Intel will be quite conservative with clocks again. Just a hunch.

Do you have a link for this? (IB-E having only six cores)

[boxleitnerb]

Here you go:
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2...rocessors.html

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally Posted by boxleitnerb

Here you go:
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2...rocessors.html

I seriously doubt they're going to release the same 4-6 cores without a reduced TPD

whats more is the 3970X already pushed the TDP threshold up to 150...

the fastest 130W TDP Xeon E5 chip w/ 8-cores is 2.7GHz (3.5 turbo), and the 2.9GHz (3.8 turbo) is 135W TDP - those clocks aren't too bad and are ultimately pretty close to what enthusiasts expect for stock clocks

Altogether I find it very hard to believe a move to 22nm wouldn't give us more than enough TDP headroom to go ahead and make an 8+ core chip @ ~130-150W TDP with ~3.2+GHz base clocks unless intel really screwed up somewhere

[boxleitnerb]

Higher clocks. The E-series is for the consumer market, not the professional market - for that there are Xeons. Intel knows that for the majority of desktop applications 6 higher clocked cores are better than 8 lower clocked cores. And they want to sell those Xeons after all and make lots of money off them.

Intel is not about "moar coars" for the consumer segment and that is a good thing. I would take a 4 GHz 6-core any day over a 3.2 GHz 8-core.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by bunnyfubbles

whats more is the 3970X already pushed the TDP threshold up to 150...

Thats not a product that exists. Atleast not yet.

[gramboh]

Originally Posted by boxleitnerb

Here you go:
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2...rocessors.html

Saw this the other day, going to laugh if it comes true (only 6C/12T for desktop enthusiast IB-E CPUs). Predicting large levels of nerd rage if so.