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 11-14-2011, 05:28 PM   #1
kalistan9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6
Red face About Sandy Bridge E and Ivy Bridge

Sandy Bridge E just came out, and I was wondering if Ivy Bridge would out-perform it? Does the Ivy Bridge have as many cores as the Sandy Bridge E?

I was confused because it lists the Sandy Bridge E as being enthusiast, top performing and Ivy Bridge as mainstream.

I don't see how Ivy Bridge is 22nm and trigated yet listed as being lesser on the Enthusiast's Market. Why would Intel have superior die technology yet make the Ivy bridge having inferior cores or cpu speed, etc. If anyone could explain to me whats up in the market, and which would be the best buy, I would appreciate it? Thank you!
kalistan9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 05:37 PM   #2
gevorg
Diamond Member
 
gevorg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,842
Default

Ivy Bridge will definitely outperform it at single to four-threaded apps. Unlikely to outperform it at apps that can efficiently use 5+ cores.
gevorg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 05:42 PM   #3
kalistan9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6
Default

Why the hell don't they make a 6 core or 8 core processor based on 22nm and trigate since they have the technology matured

They should be making an 8, or in the very least 6 core cpu. It shouldn't be too hard of a change for the die process.
kalistan9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 05:57 PM   #4
gevorg
Diamond Member
 
gevorg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,842
Default

Checkout the specs of Sandy Bridge-E, there is more to it than just 2 more cores. Ivy Bridge-E will be a true step up from Sandy Bridge-E.

Its not always about the # of cores, AMD made a mainstream 8-core CPU and it can't even beat 4-core 2500K in most benchmarks.
gevorg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 06:04 PM   #5
nitromullet
Diamond Member
 
nitromullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalistan9 View Post
Why the hell don't they make a 6 core or 8 core processor based on 22nm and trigate since they have the technology matured

They should be making an 8, or in the very least 6 core cpu. It shouldn't be too hard of a change for the die process.
They will... That will be Ivy Bridge-E.

Ivy Bridge is a tick to the Sandy Bridge tock, so no major changes other than a die shrink.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4318/i...her-point-ssds

Quote:
Ivy Bridge will be a die shrink of Sandy Bridge and represents a “tick” in Intel’s product line. That means the micro-architecture is mostly the same as Sandy Bridge, but it will be manufactured using 22nm process instead of 32nm.
First we'll see 6 core Ivy Bridge-E on LGA 2011 for enthusiasts later in 2012 (or early 2013). Then in mid 2013 we'll see the next tick from Intel which I imagine might include 6 core mainstream and performance oriented cpus on 22nm.
__________________
PC - Gigabyte Z87X-UD3H | Intel Core i5-4670K @ 4.0GHz | Phanteks PH-TC14PE | 16GB Kingston DDR3 1600
Radeon R9 290 Tri-X | Kingston V300 120GB SSD | HGST 2.5" 750GB & 500GB RAID 1 | Corsair AX850 | Lian Li PC-7A | Win 8.1 Pro
MacBook Pro 15" - Corsair Neutron 256GB SSD | 16GB G.Skill DDR3 1600 | MOTU Track 16 | JBL LSR305
Shared I/O - Deck Legend Blue | Logitech G500s | NEC PA271W
Console: Xbox One
nitromullet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 06:09 PM   #6
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
 
frostedflakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalistan9 View Post
Why the hell don't they make a 6 core or 8 core processor based on 22nm and trigate since they have the technology matured

They should be making an 8, or in the very least 6 core cpu. It shouldn't be too hard of a change for the die process.
For mainstream processors, they seem to be opting for higher integration instead of adding more cores. They seem to be more interested in using the saved die space from process shrinks to integrate more robust graphics, PLL clock generator, voltage regulators on the upcoming IB, random number generator, stuff like that. And considering their mainstream quad cores still kick the crap out of 6-core and 8-core chips from their competitor, it's hard to complain about this strategy. IB probably won't bring any huge IPC increases (maybe a couple percent due to slightly larger cache, small tweaks like that), but if it offers significantly more overclocking headroom than SB, which is already a really good overclocker, Intel will have a real winner on their hands for enthusiasts IMO, even if it "only" has four cores.
__________________
Heatware
frostedflakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 06:21 PM   #7
greenhawk
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalistan9 View Post
Why the hell don't they make a 6 core or 8 core processor based on 22nm and trigate since they have the technology matured
What you want is IB-E, the replacement for SB-E in about a year (going by intel's current 1 year per release roadmap).

As to why not make a 6/8 core for the main stream, it is a mix of the following.

-marketing
-what people use
-what the market will pay for
-intel pacing release so they can get back R&D costs

edit: got to love posting without refreshing first.
greenhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 06:29 PM   #8
greenhawk
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalistan9 View Post
Ivy Bridge would out-perform it?

Does the Ivy Bridge have as many cores as the Sandy Bridge E?

I was confused because it lists the Sandy Bridge E as being enthusiast, top performing and Ivy Bridge as mainstream.

Why would Intel have superior die technology yet make the Ivy bridge having inferior cores or cpu speed, etc.

If anyone could explain to me whats up in the market,

which would be the best buy, I would appreciate it? Thank you!
1- Hopfully a little bit in single threaded applications. No chance in properly multithreaded applications

2- Officially, no. Ivy maxes at 4. SB-E has 6 on the cpus released (though a cut back SB-E is due next year with 4 cores)

3- It is Intels first cpu for mass production on 22nm, It is therefore smaller and easier to manufacture. Thinking of it more of a provind ground of 22nm/3d transistors. (ie: outside of the lab / into mass production)

4- Currently SB, as it is well priced, avaiable and well tested. SB-E is new and expencive, IvyBridge is still 6ish months away and it is unknown if it will have any release day issues like SB did. Not expected, but not 100% either.
greenhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 07:24 PM   #9
dma0991
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,718
Default

IB is all about the GPU and power savings and not a whole lot of improvement on the performance side. Why should Intel go through the trouble which costs a lot of money to develop a 6 core mainstream IB when AMD is barely even a challenge. Besides, IB is a Tick+ which is merely a die shrink compared to SB with the exception that there is Tri-Gate thrown in to improve it.

Probably you might find mainstream 6 core offerings from Intel when Haswell arrives but from what I know Haswell will still remain at 4 cores with better integration and improvement in IPC instead of improvement in core count.
dma0991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 08:33 PM   #10
superccs
Senior Member
 
superccs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitromullet View Post
They will... That will be Ivy Bridge-E.

Ivy Bridge is a tick to the Sandy Bridge tock, so no major changes other than a die shrink.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4318/i...her-point-ssds



First we'll see 6 core Ivy Bridge-E on LGA 2011 for enthusiasts later in 2012 (or early 2013). Then in mid 2013 we'll see the next tick from Intel which I imagine might include 6 core mainstream and performance oriented cpus on 22nm.
With little to no competition on the high end why would Intel want to make any of its chips irrelevant if it doesn't have to. Bank some tech to smash your competition when it shows up.
__________________
I'll buy THAT for a dollar!
superccs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 05:25 AM   #11
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
 
IntelUser2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhawk View Post
2- Power Point presentation officially, no. Ivy maxes at 4. SB-E has 6 on the cpus released (though a cut back SB-E is due next year with 4 cores)
Corrected. They can always release it near the end of the lifecycle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
I don't see how Ivy Bridge is 22nm and trigated yet listed as being lesser on the Enthusiast's Market. Why would Intel have superior die technology yet make the Ivy bridge having inferior cores or cpu speed, etc. If anyone could explain to me whats up in the market, and which would be the best buy, I would appreciate it? Thank you!
The way I see it, all the talk and criticism towards Intel about low power products have refocused the 22nm process enhancements towards low power. So if you want mobile Ivy Bridge, great for you! Ultrabooks, even better! The way its going, 3820 chip is going to be matched in performance by the top tier mobile Ivy Bridge chips, for the first time ever. Sandy Bridge was close, but it'll definitely close the gap in Ivy Bridge. Even if 3820 outperforms the 2700K by 10% Ivy Bridge mobile might get close.
__________________
Core i7 2600K + Turbo Boost | Intel DH67BL/GMA HD 3000 IGP | Corsair XMS3 2x2GB DDR3-1600 @ 1333 9-9-9-24 |
Intel X25-M G1 80GB + Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | OCZ Modstream 450W | Samsung Syncmaster 931c | Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit | Microsoft Sidewinder Mouse | Viliv S5-Atom Z520 WinXP UMPC
IntelUser2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 06:45 AM   #12
BrightCandle
Diamond Member
 
BrightCandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,763
Default

To some extent its bad market segmentation on similar products and a delayed release causing confusion. Ideally Intel would have released SB-E at a similar time to SB allowing a choice between mainstream and professional markets. That would have made it clear what the performance level and capabilities would be. It didn't work out that way, SB-E clearly hit some snags on its route to market.

But with Ivy looming SB-E will likely have less per core performance than SB-E, so it has always been with processors. The move in process brings with it benefits that the best harvested dies from the previous generation can never out do. The only difference between a lot of CPUs you buy is simply how fast/well they tested and were binned. They are all the same product. SB-E is a SB core with the GPU removed and a bucket load of cache added along with more memory channels. With Ivy E being a distance away it looks even odder than 2011 is the so called high end. I think its just bad release timing.

We aren't looking at massive performance improvements from Ivy at the moment anyway and SB-E is in some circumstances a marked performance improvement over SB with the 2 extra cores. Its also quite a bit cheaper than a 990X and similar to a 980, so overall it works out that 6 core performance is cheaper on SB than on 1366. But they led with the mainstream and its definitely going to hurt their sales of the high end chips.
__________________
I no longer frequent these forums.
BrightCandle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 02:09 PM   #13
PlasmaBomb
Lifer
 
PlasmaBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: In a pub... in Cumbria
Posts: 11,769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by superccs View Post
With little to no competition on the high end why would Intel want to make any of its chips irrelevant if it doesn't have to. Bank some tech to smash your competition when it shows up.
Which is why SB-E is an 8 core die with 2 cores disabled. If AMD were to show up with something competitive I'm sure Intel could "find" two more cores...
__________________
PlasmaBomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 02:13 PM   #14
exar333
Diamond Member
 
exar333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaBomb View Post
Which is why SB-E is an 8 core die with 2 cores disabled. If AMD were to show up with something competitive I'm sure Intel could "find" two more cores...
Power consumption.

They could re-enable the extra cores, but clocks would need to be dropped to likely ~2.4-2.6. Intel likes to keep single-threaded performance high, so I doubt this be released until IB-E.
__________________
My Cars:
-2011 DGM WRX Limited
My Rig:
5820K @ 4.5 Ghz; 3500uncore; 1.3v
16GB (4x4GB) @2666mhz; 15-15-15-38; 1.35v
EVGA GTX 970 SC @ 1545c/7780m; 3440x1440 LG
exar333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 02:51 PM   #15
greenhawk
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelUser2000 View Post
Corrected. They can always release it near the end of the lifecycle.
Unless the IvyBridge cpus being released have disabled cores, I stronly do not think intel is going to re-create a new mask to allow the creation of a 6 core s1155 cpu. So no correction needed. Making a mask is not cheap and definitly is not worth doing for a limited run of cpus at the end of a life cycle. Espically as the Ivybridge replacement already has a date lined up for its release.
greenhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 02:57 PM   #16
greenhawk
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaBomb View Post
Which is why SB-E is an 8 core die with 2 cores disabled.
More to do with being a Xeon reject as I see it. The SB-E is more likly chips that did not make the cut to be a Xeon / 8 Core unit. As the quality of production improves we might see a 8 core before the end of life from the SB-E, but intel generally wants to keep to it's price points of $1000 for the top chip. Looking at the Xeon range, it is allowing some to be well over $1000, and those ones have all the trimings (20MB cache, 8 cores ect).
greenhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 03:15 PM   #17
Edrick
Golden Member
 
Edrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhawk View Post
More to do with being a Xeon reject as I see it. The SB-E is more likly chips that did not make the cut to be a Xeon / 8 Core unit. As the quality of production improves we might see a 8 core before the end of life from the SB-E, but intel generally wants to keep to it's price points of $1000 for the top chip. Looking at the Xeon range, it is allowing some to be well over $1000, and those ones have all the trimings (20MB cache, 8 cores ect).
Read:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExarKun333 View Post
Power consumption. They could re-enable the extra cores, but clocks would need to be dropped to likely ~2.4-2.6. Intel likes to keep single-threaded performance high, so I doubt this be released until IB-E.
Desktop parts needs to be kept at 130W or under. Xeons go higher.
__________________
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 11-15-2011, 06:02 PM   #18
IntelEnthusiast
Intel Representative
 
IntelEnthusiast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 582
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhawk View Post
More to do with being a Xeon reject as I see it. The SB-E is more likly chips that did not make the cut to be a Xeon / 8 Core unit. As the quality of production improves we might see a 8 core before the end of life from the SB-E, but intel generally wants to keep to it's price points of $1000 for the top chip. Looking at the Xeon range, it is allowing some to be well over $1000, and those ones have all the trimings (20MB cache, 8 cores ect).
You know it is hard to have a reject for a processor that hasn't been release yet? The Intel® Core™ i7-3960X is the top of the bins from Socket 2011 at this time.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team
IntelEnthusiast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 09:06 PM   #19
greenhawk
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edrick View Post
Desktop parts needs to be kept at 130W or under. Xeons go higher.
The wattage limit is more being respectable to the market and it's demands. 130W is just the limit selected seeing as even at that level, customers became volcal about the heat / cooling needs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...er_dissipation

Higher end Pentium D - 130W
Core 2 Quad extreams ~ 130W
Core 2 Extreme QX9775 - 150W
all (?) Bloomfield i7s - 130W

AMD appears to be mostly a 125W cap, but an odd ball at 140W is present in the range.

It comes down to what the market segment will accept, and without doing fancy things, getting the heat from the silicon into the enviroment is not a simple task at high wattage levels (small surface area and only having access to one side of the chip).
greenhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 09:19 PM   #20
greenhawk
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelEnthusiast View Post
You know it is hard to have a reject for a processor that hasn't been release yet?

The Intel® Core™ i7-3960X is the top of the bins from Socket 2011 at this time.
Yes it is hard, but at the same time, the manufacturing process is such that if 8 cores on a future chip passes testing, those would be put aside as inital samples for the Xeon release. At least until the current process is tuned and quality improves. I do not see intel, even with their budget, going out of their way to kill two working cores on a chip to make a cheaper chip for a market segment vs putting that chip aside for a later release.

While I am on the outside looking in to the silicon industry, the testing and grading of silicon is rather straight forward. You tested it, disable sections not up to par, speed test the working sections then disable working parts as needed to fit a pre-determined unit configuration. Then just need to package into a chip and wrap it up for sale.

In short, while it might not be "in production", I would bet the testing/grading is setup to look for them and is bining them accordingly in preperation of having enough to called it "in production".

Last edited by greenhawk; 11-15-2011 at 09:23 PM. Reason: some spelling
greenhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 09:41 PM   #21
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edrick View Post
Desktop parts needs to be kept at 130W or under. Xeons go higher.
Which just seems so weird to me.

Consider that the guy who is going to drop $1k for an extreme-SKU CPU is probably intending to drop that CPU into a rig that is populated with at least one, and possibly three, 300W GTX580's or HD6990's...whether the CPU is binned to use 130W or 300W is quite superfluous.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2011, 12:27 AM   #22
Edrick
Golden Member
 
Edrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhawk View Post
Yes it is hard, but at the same time, the manufacturing process is such that if 8 cores on a future chip passes testing, those would be put aside as inital samples for the Xeon release. At least until the current process is tuned and quality improves. I do not see intel, even with their budget, going out of their way to kill two working cores on a chip to make a cheaper chip for a market segment vs putting that chip aside for a later release.

While I am on the outside looking in to the silicon industry, the testing and grading of silicon is rather straight forward. You tested it, disable sections not up to par, speed test the working sections then disable working parts as needed to fit a pre-determined unit configuration. Then just need to package into a chip and wrap it up for sale.

In short, while it might not be "in production", I would bet the testing/grading is setup to look for them and is bining them accordingly in preperation of having enough to called it "in production".
Keep in mind that these are the C1 steppings with broken Vt-d. The C2 steppings will fix this and those will be your Xeons. So yes, these 3960s are top binned as of now and not rejects of the Xeons.
__________________
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 11-16-2011, 12:43 AM   #23
Khato
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 914
Default

The real question is - why offer anything more than 4 cores for a mainstream processor? So that you can have more cores power gated the majority of the time? Are there any 'mainstream' applications other than video encoding that really make use of more thank four cores? Since that usage is likely going to be obsolete anyway with the performance and quality improvements of the Ivy Bridge Quick Sync implementation.

Another interesting query - how long do you expect Intel's mainstream line to stay at a maximum of four cores? Haswell? Broadwell? Skylake? Skymont?
Khato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2011, 01:16 AM   #24
greenhawk
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edrick View Post
Keep in mind that these are the C1 steppings with broken Vt-d.
I did not know that. I just assumed it is like all other features of the current cpu market. Features turned on or off after the silicon has been processed to keep manufacturing costs down.

Guess the only thing they can pull out of the current quality binning process is silicon for extream testing (ie: tests that do not care about Vt-D or any other design issue).
greenhawk 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 11:17 AM.


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