Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-30-2011, 11:43 AM   #1
GWestphal
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,117
Default Ivy Bridge vs Haswell

Haswell is being reported as a 30% reduction in power as compared to Sandy Bridge, so how will it compare to Ivy Bridge? It seems like the Tri-gate is only major change that is happening and that is common to both IB and HW, so will power consumption on both be pretty similar?
GWestphal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 12:00 PM   #2
Edrick
Golden Member
 
Edrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 1,525
Default

SB power consumption was better than Westmere even though they both were on 32nm. I expect Haswell to include other power saving improvements other than just being tri-gate 22nm. So yes, I think Haswell will be more power effecient than IB.
__________________
Core i7 4770
Gigabyte Z87X-UD3H (F5 BIOS)
G.Skill RipjawsZ 8GB @ 2400mhz 10-12-12-31
Gigabyte GTX 660
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB
Antec Eleven Hundred
Edrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 12:29 PM   #3
nyker96
Diamond Member
 
nyker96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,581
Default

I read that Haswell will use some major power saving technique that supposedly can idle like under 10W total for the entire system (probably not including gcard). of course, these are just rumors, who knows what actual improvements are in store for haswell. But from the look of things Haswell will concentrate on power improvements.
__________________
Windows 7 64 bit || 2500K@4.2 with Mugen 2 || Biostar TZ68K+ || MSI HD 7790 1GB || G.SKILL Ripjaws 4x4GB DDR3 1600 || Samsung F3 1TB || HAF 932 || Enhance 5150GH 500W PSU || BenQ FP91G+
My Rig: All Niter
----
buyer/seller references: ebay
nyker96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 01:01 PM   #4
GWestphal
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,117
Default

now if AMD and nVidia could starting producing more power efficient parts so the GPUs don't require 300W.
GWestphal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 01:30 PM   #5
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 37,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWestphal View Post
now if AMD and nVidia could starting producing more power efficient parts so the GPUs don't require 300W.
nvidia and AMD did make some real progress in idle power use, noise and heat in the 5xx / 6xxx cards. The 68xx/69xx and my GTX 560 are all much better at idle than my old 4870 was.

Not so much in load power, but that's partly from being stuck at 40nm longer than planned.
DaveSimmons is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 01:32 PM   #6
Soccerman06
Diamond Member
 
Soccerman06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWestphal View Post
now if AMD and nVidia could starting producing more power efficient parts so the GPUs don't require 300W.
Pretty sure they already have those
__________________
puppy1
puppy2
puppy3
Steam: soccerman05
Soccerman06 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:23 PM   #7
GWestphal
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,117
Default

I'm sure they do have lower performing parts that use less, but they also have less horse power. It just seems like CPUs more consistently make power efficiency a priority. Look at Intel P4 was a beast like 135W, now the Core series is at something like 75W and 15-30W for mobile. In that same time nVidia has gone from about 100W to sometimes over 400W on their cards. Obviously some of that is process size, but 40nm isn't that big compared to SNB at 32nm. Maybe tri-gate will get licensed all over though which would help.

Last edited by GWestphal; 10-30-2011 at 02:26 PM.
GWestphal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 09:49 PM   #8
BrightCandle
Diamond Member
 
BrightCandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,763
Default

Intel still make 130W CPUs, they simply don't market and sell them to the average consumer. Xeon's can come with high TDPs. SB-E is going to be so hot Intel is wanting to ship watercooling with it for the first time.

But those CPU's are expensive and the benefits are normally only for highly threaded scenarios and on motherboards with SAS and other such unnecessary tech. So most people don't even consider those chips, but the high TDP stuff still exists.

For GPU's however we don't have such a monopoly driving the price to 1000's of dollars for the high end so they compete at more palatable prices to the peak of the available power.
BrightCandle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 10:22 PM   #9
gevorg
Diamond Member
 
gevorg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,877
Default

If Haswell will be 30% more power efficient than Sandy Bridge (~67W TDP vs 95W TDP), while having twice as many cores, that would be a pretty solid step forward in CPU tech.
gevorg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 12:50 AM   #10
BrightCandle
Diamond Member
 
BrightCandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,763
Default

If we get twice as many cores without loosing clock speed then it will be a worth while upgrade, sort of. SB-E appeals for the same reason as it'll have 6 cores and hence might offer a genuine 100% boast once you take into account SB IPC advantages, additional overclocking headroom and the extra cores. But it is still only better in limited circumstances.

After programming concurrency programs for many years I can say quite safely it'll be a while before we can use multiple cores well.
__________________
I no longer frequent these forums.
BrightCandle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 01:42 AM   #11
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,560
Default

Personally I'm not interested in more cores, and I'm also not so much interested in having a laptop CPU in my desktop (sub-95W).

If AMD and Nvidia can figure out a way to cool >300W GPU's then I'm ready for Intel and AMD to open up a product lineup that goes there too.

And do it the good old fashion way, keep it to 4-6 cores and just give me some nice high clockspeeds. With configurable TDP, if I don't want 300W then I can set it to 95W and have the clockspeed throttle itself accordingly.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 02:49 AM   #12
gevorg
Diamond Member
 
gevorg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,877
Default

The mainstream CPUs have been "stuck" at quad-cores for too long: Q6600 => Q9400 => i7-860 => i7-2500. Its time to move on to eight cores! Too bad its not until Haswell.
gevorg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 05:26 AM   #13
john3850
Golden Member
 
john3850's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: To close to NYC
Posts: 1,100
Default

This Haswell will be the end of overclocking as we know it.
The IB only gives you better Graphics.
I see two Haswells one for the high end servers at and one for laptops and low tdp desktops.
__________________
WC-3770k-77 Extreme4-46k=1.301v-830-ST240-7970-2x8 VLP-1866 1.35v in a Haf932-Dell u2412m
2500k-47k-Z68 Pro3-4x4sniper-5870-840-Boot-wifes pc .
WC i7 930 200x21 1.31v-5870-M4-840ssd-bkup pc.

Last edited by john3850; 10-31-2011 at 07:47 AM.
john3850 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 09:13 AM   #14
podspi
Golden Member
 
podspi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john3850 View Post
This Haswell will be the end of overclocking as we know it.
The IB only gives you better Graphics.
I see two Haswells one for the high end servers at and one for laptops and low tdp desktops.
What makes you say that? If anything, the number of models have been increasing, not the other way around...
podspi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 09:43 AM   #15
ShadowVVL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 747
Default

I think its to early to report on haswell since we still have around 16-18 months before we see it.

Intel is good at increasing performance and reducing power consumption, so I would expect the same from IB and haswell.
ShadowVVL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 11:43 AM   #16
john3850
Golden Member
 
john3850's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: To close to NYC
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by podspi View Post
What makes you say that? If anything, the number of models have been increasing, not the other way around...
Trigate gave intel a faster then normal way into a low watt and mobile market.
Why did intel cut back on SB-E goodies its like intel is trying to get to the smaller Haswell as fast as it can.
__________________
WC-3770k-77 Extreme4-46k=1.301v-830-ST240-7970-2x8 VLP-1866 1.35v in a Haf932-Dell u2412m
2500k-47k-Z68 Pro3-4x4sniper-5870-840-Boot-wifes pc .
WC i7 930 200x21 1.31v-5870-M4-840ssd-bkup pc.
john3850 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 02:22 PM   #17
podspi
Golden Member
 
podspi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john3850 View Post
Trigate gave intel a faster then normal way into a low watt and mobile market.
Why did intel cut back on SB-E goodies its like intel is trying to get to the smaller Haswell as fast as it can.
While I don't disagree that Intel is focusing on low-power, I doubt they would only have a few models. Too few price-discrimination opportunities


It will be interesting to see how Intel develops their configurable TDP feature from IB to Haswell. It seems borderline silly that we used to run our CPUs at a constant speed back in the day...
podspi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 02:34 PM   #18
Lonyo
Lifer
 
Lonyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,678
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
Personally I'm not interested in more cores, and I'm also not so much interested in having a laptop CPU in my desktop (sub-95W).

If AMD and Nvidia can figure out a way to cool >300W GPU's then I'm ready for Intel and AMD to open up a product lineup that goes there too.

And do it the good old fashion way, keep it to 4-6 cores and just give me some nice high clockspeeds. With configurable TDP, if I don't want 300W then I can set it to 95W and have the clockspeed throttle itself accordingly.
They already did that. It's called the K series.
__________________
CPU: Q3570K @ 4.1GHz 1.23v // Mobo: Asus P8Z77-V // GFX: Sapphire Tri-X 290 @ 1000/5200 // RAM: Corsair DDR3 @ 1600MHz 9-9-9-24 // SSD: Samsung 830 128GB
Video cards: TNT2, Ti4400, 9800, 7800GT(+7200GS), HD4850(+HD2400), HD6850, HD7950 (Laptops: GF6150, HD3200, GMA500)
Lonyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 04:43 PM   #19
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonyo View Post
They already did that. It's called the K series.
I have a 2600K, it consumes ~270W at 5GHz with IBT.

But it doesn't have a warranty now that I OC'ed it, the expected lifetime of the CPU is questionable, and I have zero confidence in the CPU correctly processes the 700+ instructions in its ISA when operating at that clockspeed because all of our stress test apps merely focus on a few select intructions to test for correct output.

It would be great if Intel actually verified and binned 5GHz 300W TDP sandy's.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 04:51 PM   #20
grkM3
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
I have a 2600K, it consumes ~270W at 5GHz with IBT.

But it doesn't have a warranty now that I OC'ed it, the expected lifetime of the CPU is questionable, and I have zero confidence in the CPU correctly processes the 700+ instructions in its ISA when operating at that clockspeed because all of our stress test apps merely focus on a few select intructions to test for correct output.

It would be great if Intel actually verified and binned 5GHz 300W TDP sandy's.
thats not right,my 2600k at 5.1ghz with 8 threads and avx is about 136 W are you measuring total system power draw?

This is with 1.55 v core and its stable at 5.3ghz at this voltage

__________________
Main rig
2600k@4.8 24/7 1.415 WC
ASUS P67 MIVE
8GB Gskill 2200 7-10-7-1t
Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD
2 GTX 560TI in SLI

Last edited by grkM3; 10-31-2011 at 04:57 PM.
grkM3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 04:53 PM   #21
podspi
Golden Member
 
podspi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
I have a 2600K, it consumes ~270W at 5GHz with IBT.

But it doesn't have a warranty now that I OC'ed it, the expected lifetime of the CPU is questionable, and I have zero confidence in the CPU correctly processes the 700+ instructions in its ISA when operating at that clockspeed because all of our stress test apps merely focus on a few select intructions to test for correct output.

It would be great if Intel actually verified and binned 5GHz 300W TDP sandy's.
That's an excellent point. Especially when those calculations are (financially) important.

Your post is making me wonder what (if anything) Via does (IIRC, they use Intel CPUs OC'ed to 5ghz to do modeling).

Though, you have to wonder about the Perf/watt of OCing that high. For many (most) people just using more (slower) cores is probably a winning proposition.
podspi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 05:43 PM   #22
SHAQ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
Personally I'm not interested in more cores, and I'm also not so much interested in having a laptop CPU in my desktop (sub-95W).

If AMD and Nvidia can figure out a way to cool >300W GPU's then I'm ready for Intel and AMD to open up a product lineup that goes there too.

And do it the good old fashion way, keep it to 4-6 cores and just give me some nice high clockspeeds. With configurable TDP, if I don't want 300W then I can set it to 95W and have the clockspeed throttle itself accordingly.
+1. I'd like to have one of these.
__________________
Asrock X79 Extreme 6
i7 3820 @ 4.75 1.36v
Mega Shadow w/ CM R4 Blue 120mm push/pull
16 GB G. Skill Z Series 1666 7-8-8-24 1T 1.56v
EVGA 680 2GB SLI 1272/3200
Intel 80GB SSD, Crucial M4 128GB
WD Caviar Black 1.5TB,750GBX2
CM Silent Power Pro 1000W
CM Storm Sniper Black
SHAQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 06:15 PM   #23
john3850
Golden Member
 
john3850's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: To close to NYC
Posts: 1,100
Default

If there are so many 2600Ks stable at 5200+ why dont I ever see anyone doing anything like F@H at over 5000 Hhz.
The cpu can and will correct a small amount of errors from IBT.
__________________
WC-3770k-77 Extreme4-46k=1.301v-830-ST240-7970-2x8 VLP-1866 1.35v in a Haf932-Dell u2412m
2500k-47k-Z68 Pro3-4x4sniper-5870-840-Boot-wifes pc .
WC i7 930 200x21 1.31v-5870-M4-840ssd-bkup pc.

Last edited by john3850; 10-31-2011 at 07:05 PM.
john3850 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 06:36 PM   #24
gorydetails
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 50
Default

Id love a 5ghz stock cpu...but what would the price tag be for it?? $10000?? Lol if inte priced them affrdable then the rest of their cpus would become dirt cheap...bye bye amd
gorydetails is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 07:10 PM   #25
MrTransistorm
Senior Member
 
MrTransistorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john3850 View Post
If there are so many 2600Ks stable at 5200+ why dont I ever see anyone doing anything like F@H at over 5000 GHhz.
The cpu can and will correct a small amount of errors from IBT.
Good point. There aren't many 2600K's folding at high OC's because they would fail a lot of units. Sure, you can test for stability with Prime95 or Linx, but just because it doesn't crash or give you errors doesn't mean it is stable. Folding is quite intolerant of instability even though the actual stress level on the hardware is less than Prime95 and others.

There's no telling when or what sort of error you might get from a failed unit. If you're lucky you'll get a BSOD, and then you'll know right away to adjust your OC. You might make it all the way to 99% completion before it fails. You might even complete the unit seemingly well, but then the results sever tells you that the results are bad. Fun stuff!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phynaz View Post
Did you know that there are other uses for a PC besides playing games?
i7 2600K@4.5GHz||Gigabyte P67A-UD7-B3||2x4GB SuperTalent DDR3-1600||EVGA GTX580 1.5GB||EK Supreme HF Copper/Acetal||Lian-Li PC-A77A||Seasonic X750||Win7 Pro x64

i7 2600K@4.5GHz||Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H||2x4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600||Thermalright HR-02||Lian-Li PC-A77F||Seasonic X760||Ubuntu Server 12.04

MBP 15" Matte||2.5 GHz 6MB Penryn||4GB RAM||200GB 7200 HDD||Win7 Pro x64/OS X 10.6.8
MrTransistorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.