6 core Ivy-E coming....yay?

[ViRGE]

Keep in mind that the more cores Intel adds, the slower the chip gets. To use SNB-E as an example, it's one thing to jump from 95W to 130W in exchange for two more cores at roughly the same clockspeed, but if you moved on to the 8 core Xeons they both consumed more power and had lower clockspeeds at the same time.

Intel isn't going to sell a $1000 Core i7 that gets whipped by their existing CPUs in 1-6 thread scenarios.

 

[pantsaregood]

since most software are only using 2.5 core.

uh
what

how can a program use half of a core

you can't run "half" in parallel

 

[ViRGE]

uh
what

how can a program use half of a core

you can't run "half" in parallel

Presumably he's talking about averages? Scaling is rarely 100%; as an increasing number of threads have to wait on locks and mutexes, you don't get the full benefits of each additional thread.

 

[meloz]

Hey, man, if more people actually bought these things, then there would be reason to keep cranking it. But right now, it's a niche market in which Intel throws its Xeon rejects.

I was also tempted to say that the 6 core IVB-E are 'harvested' chips, dervied from dies in which all 8 or 10 cores do not work. However, I also recently learnt that Intel do different die sizes. So, who knows. When Xeons are released hopefully there will be data about die sizes. Then we can compare the die sizes of different cored products and conclude what is going on.

Maybe the only reason for keeping the IVB-E throttled at 6 cores is to justify the price of upcoming 8 and 10 core IVB-E based Xeons. Intel's market lead in this segment is so absolute they can afford to fuse or chop off functional cores and still sell every CPU they make.

 

[cytg111]

Now if we could only reenable those fused cores .. with a drill or a surgical laser or ...

 

[ViRGE]

Now if we could only reenable those fused cores .. with a drill or a surgical laser or ...

What you want is the equivalent of a surgical laser for engineers: the Focused Ion Beam.

 

[Namira Fang]

Meh.. Not impressed at all. Really wanting a x79 build but think I'll stick with SB and hope that maybe, just maybe they will release a 8 core part later on down the line.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Keep in mind that the more cores Intel adds, the slower the chip gets. To use SNB-E as an example, it's one thing to jump from 95W to 130W in exchange for two more cores at roughly the same clockspeed, but if you moved on to the 8 core Xeons they both consumed more power and had lower clockspeeds at the same time.

Intel isn't going to sell a $1000 Core i7 that gets whipped by their existing CPUs in 1-6 thread scenarios.

For the extreme CPUs they really should consider going to a higher TDP then. Enthusiasts who are purchasing these units really won't care about a 150w TDP since we will be overclocking these anyways.

But again we are talking about a niche of a niche.

 

[cytg111]

It is as we feared, IVB-E is largely irrelevant, you'll be almost as good off with a haswell, sell that in a year and go haswell-e.

 

[daveybrat]

**Sigh**, waiting to upgrade my PII rig and am really quite disappointed in both Haswell and IB-E's product line.

Might be better off just picking up the i7 3770K at Microcenter for $229 and calling it a day.

Either that or wait to see what Steamroller has to offer.

 

[crashtech]

Can't beat that Microcenter deal, wonder what they will be selling the 4770K for once it's established in the pipeline.

 

[Arachnotronic]

**Sigh**, waiting to upgrade my PII rig and am really quite disappointed in both Haswell and IB-E's product line.

Might be better off just picking up the i7 3770K at Microcenter for $229 and calling it a day.

Either that or wait to see what Steamroller has to offer.

Why would Steamroller APU, on 28nm, be any better than a 22nm Ivy Bridge made by a company that's been getting it right for nearly 7 years now?

Just get the 3770k or get an 8350. Don't bother waiting for AMD's "mainstream" stuff - it's not in the league you're looking for.

 

[UaVaj]

^^^ Yeah, just gonna post that I'm seeing 8 core i7-3980X --- appears to be SB-E tho and not IB-E/Haswell based on numbering.

Is anyone else EXTREMELY CONFUSED with this ridiculous numbering?? More specifically -- why is the SB desktop parts using 2xxx and SB-E using 3xxx as well as IB using 3xxx. Haswell is using 4xxx but so is IB-E using 4xxx??? WTF???

stupid intel numbering. one cannot rely on soley on the part number to tell the families apart. you have to know which part number you are reffering to.

 

[UaVaj]

For the extreme CPUs they really should consider going to a higher TDP then. Enthusiasts who are purchasing these units really won't care about a 150w TDP since we will be overclocking these anyways.

But again we are talking about a niche of a niche.

wtf is intel thinking? anyone who considering one of these high end processor, TDP is a low priority if even a priority.

removing the TDP cap. while at it. intel could have bundle it with a capable larger hsf.

heck if anyone did truly care about TDP. all they would need is a Core G. that will run almost everything.

for the performance component buyers. at the end of the day. it about performance. not watt savings.

 

[cantholdanymore]

My thinking is that whatever the demand for SB-E, it was satisfactory to Intel so they're replacing it with the current equivalent; that's all.

 

[ViRGE]

For the extreme CPUs they really should consider going to a higher TDP then. Enthusiasts who are purchasing these units really won't care about a 150w TDP since we will be overclocking these anyways.

But again we are talking about a niche of a niche.

They did. 3970X has a TDP of 150W instead of 130W as on 3960X. And that was for all of 200MHz on the base clock and 100MHz on the highest turbo bin.

 

[BrightCandle]

To some extent its disappointing not to see the 2 extra cores, but on the other hand I can see why they wouldn't do it. Fusing 2 cores off is going to increase yields which will decrease the cost but more importantly keeping the core to 6 cores stops it cannibalising sales of the Xeons any more than SB-E already does. Will be interesting to see the overclocking results but my suspicion is that just like IB this isn't going to be much to talk about. SB->IB was a minor upgrade and so is SB-E-> IB-E and we all kind of knew that was going to be the case.

Since my SB-E doesn't overclock well I had been hoping for a replacement chip in IB-E that would also net a little bit more IPC but without those 2 extra cores it really doesn't seem worth it.

 

[Idontcare]

They did. 3970X has a TDP of 150W instead of 130W as on 3960X. And that was for all of 200MHz on the base clock and 100MHz on the highest turbo bin.

For 6cores I could see Intel being right there at 150W TDP again.

8cores would definitely be a challenge to get to 4GHz under 150W. The watts add up quickly with 22nm when the silicon gets hot (leakage) and you push the clocks to around 4GHz.

Not to mention there is another level of cannibalization that Intel is keen to avoid here...the 2S market.

 

[ShintaiDK]

To some extent its disappointing not to see the 2 extra cores, but on the other hand I can see why they wouldn't do it. Fusing 2 cores off is going to increase yields which will decrease the cost but more importantly keeping the core to 6 cores stops it cannibalising sales of the Xeons any more than SB-E already does. Will be interesting to see the overclocking results but my suspicion is that just like IB this isn't going to be much to talk about. SB->IB was a minor upgrade and so is SB-E-> IB-E and we all kind of knew that was going to be the case.

Since my SB-E doesn't overclock well I had been hoping for a replacement chip in IB-E that would also net a little bit more IPC but without those 2 extra cores it really doesn't seem worth it.

I think its more to do with performance and segmentation than yield.

Would you pay 1000$ for a 3.2Ghz octocore vs a 3.9Ghz hexcore as a gamer?

 

[aaksheytalwar]

I would buy a 4 core haswell over 8 core ivy e assuming the price is the same. But of course I only game.

 

[moonbogg]

Maybe its just too soon for a 16 thread consumer chip. If you need something like that, you get it from Xeon I suppose. I can't think of many consumer apps that can use that many threads, and anthing that does could easily be considered a work station oriented program. 12 threads is already a ton. Personally, i'd rather have a highly OC'd 6 core ivy than a similarly clocked 4 core Haswell, only because recent games actually show a noticeable improvement with Sandy-E vs Ivy. Maybe thats the cache though? I duno.

 

[loccothan]

buhahaha 100Mhz and mabe 100 more on overclock ! thats ridiculous ! Hey Intel wake Up ! or u'll be buying that crap yourself

 

[UNhooked]

hopefully I can pickup the current generation for cheap with folks upgrading to IVY-E

 

[moonbogg]

buhahaha 100Mhz and mabe 100 more on overclock ! thats ridiculous ! Hey Intel wake Up ! or u'll be buying that crap yourself

Hey, they might use solder instead of paste. If they do that, then maybe we get get 4.8 on Ivy instead of 4.8 on sandy. What then? :hmm:

 

[tweakboy]

You can just stick with what you have Adamk and no need to upgrade to haswell. Your rig will go for years to come.