• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
There's no reason for not releasing higher core-count chips. AMD's proven people will buy them for the core count. And just stop to think about it... the enthusiasts that would buy these chips in the first place are the same people most likely that have some program or application that can max them out.

Whatever Intel does, it doesn't appear that they will be undercutting their Xeon lineup. So if consumers want to see a good 8-core or 10-core model then the Xeons will have to be priced equivalently... and Intel apparently wants to keep Xeon prices higher than that.

The cheapest 8-core Intel chip is a 2Ghz dual-socket model. Link


ShintaiDK said:
You are mixing single socket and dualsocket chips.

The E5-1660 is most likely what you searched for.
Click to expand...

Because Intel doesn't sell ANY 8-core single-socket Xeon. You have to pay extra for a dual-socket chip if you want to buy one. The 1660 is six-core.
 
You say people wish to buy chips for the core count? Do you know how few FX8xxx series chips AMD actually ships? The amount of people wanting 8 core chips in the regular consumer space is less than 0.125% if we look at that number. Even using only AMDs desktop number. We talk something like 1.5% of AMD desktop class buyers wanting a FX8xxx.
 
Last edited:
Ya say that, but I see a lot of people running AMD FX chips for machines that do nothing but game and surf the web. People will pay a bit extra for those 8-cores even though it'll be useless to them. I'm sure with pricier Intel models they'd sell far fewer, but the point still remains that the market IS there regardless of size. Especially amongst enthusiasts and professionals that can use the performance.

Personally, I know fair number of people that'd love to build an Intel folding box instead of 8-12 core multi-socket AMD rigs, except prices are so high that not even the much lower power draw and higher performance can make up for the price increase.
 
No they wont. Its a tiny tiny niche that you overestimate. Most likely due to self interrest.

Intel might even sell more 3960X/3970X chips than AMD sells FX8xxx.
 
ShintaiDK said:
No they wont. Its a tiny tiny niche that you overestimate. Most likely due to self interrest.

Intel might even sell more 3960X/3970X chips than AMD sells FX8xxx.
Click to expand...

Forgive me, but I'll take that second comment and apply it to your first. You do realize AMD sells eight-core chips starting at $160, right?

The most expensive FX-3850 is $199, and the 3970X is $1,030 ignoring the more expensive motherboard / RAM pairing. It's pretty obvious which one gets more sales, even without a business degree or tallying up everyone I know with FX chips vs Intel's flagship chips. 😀
 
Enough of this guys. This isn't an AMD/Intel sales thread. Stick to the subject of IVB-E.

-ViRGE
 
Idontcare said:
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.
Click to expand...

I still think that Intel should really not worry too much about TDP when it comes to these high end Enthusiast chips. Put 8 cores on it and clock it down until they reach a TDP they are comfortable with (150w, 135w, etc). Leave the multiplier unlocked and let us (enthusiasts) go nuts.

A lack luster IVB-E release isn't going to glean them many sales among this hyper critical crowd.
 
OVerLoRDI said:
I still think that Intel should really not worry too much about TDP when it comes to these high end Enthusiast chips. Put 8 cores on it and clock it down until they reach a TDP they are comfortable with (150w, 135w, etc). Leave the multiplier unlocked and let us (enthusiasts) go nuts.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:😀:thumbsup:
 
OVerLoRDI said:
I still think that Intel should really not worry too much about TDP when it comes to these high end Enthusiast chips. Put 8 cores on it and clock it down until they reach a TDP they are comfortable with (150w, 135w, etc). Leave the multiplier unlocked and let us (enthusiasts) go nuts.

A lack luster IVB-E release isn't going to glean them many sales among this hyper critical crowd.
Click to expand...

+1 Exactly!
 
OVerLoRDI said:
I still think that Intel should really not worry too much about TDP when it comes to these high end Enthusiast chips. Put 8 cores on it and clock it down until they reach a TDP they are comfortable with (150w, 135w, etc). Leave the multiplier unlocked and let us (enthusiasts) go nuts.

A lack luster IVB-E release isn't going to glean them many sales among this hyper critical crowd.
Click to expand...

I'm all for this idea.
 
I think if IB-E fixes the PCIe 3.0 issues that plagued SB-E you'll some people running tri-SLI/CF upgrade for this reason alone.
 
nitromullet said:
I think if IB-E fixes the PCIe 3.0 issues that plagued SB-E you'll some people running tri-SLI/CF upgrade for this reason alone.
Click to expand...

That might bag you a few extra FPS (like 4 or 5). That would be funny thought wouldn't it?

Intel: Hey guys, buy Ivy-E for PCI-e 3.0 support...no really, we mean it this time.

Nvidia: Well, it wasn't really intel's faul...actually yeah, Intel better get it right this time!

Was that funny? Did I do good?
 
SB-E also supports PCI-E 3.0. It's enabled by default on X79 with ATI cards. It also works by default with the two PLX chips on my motherboard. 8X PCI-E 3.0 lanes from the CPU are devoted to the LSI controller. The 32 other PCI-E 3.0 lanes are divided up between the two PLX chips. Currently running all three Titans at PCI-3.0 X16 for each card. IB-E isn't going to change that at all.
 
Last edited:
AdamK47 said:
Here we go again.
Click to expand...

AdamK47 said:
SB-E also supports PCI-E 3.0. It's enabled by default on X79 with ATI cards. It also works by default with the two PLX chips on my motherboard. 8X PCI-E 3.0 lanes from the CPU are devoted to the LSI controller. The 32 other PCI-E 3.0 lanes are divided up between the two PLX chips. Currently running all three Titans at PCI-3.0 X16 for each card. IB-E isn't going to change that at all.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't know I was stirring up anything. I haven't been posting on AT much lately so I'm not up to date any drama.

PCIe 3.0 never worked on my SB-E/GTX 680 rig even with the patch. I had a downright budget rig compared to yours, so there were not a bunch of third party chips on my motherboard controlling the PCIe lanes (Asus P9X79 LE).

With a 3930K and a GTX680 performance wasn't an issue, but I do know that both Intel and NVIDIA revoked official PCIe 3.0 support for x79/SB-E.
 
Kougar said:
Personally, I know fair number of people that'd love to build an Intel folding box instead of 8-12 core multi-socket AMD rigs, except prices are so high that not even the much lower power draw and higher performance can make up for the price increase.
Click to expand...
Indeed
I'm in a similar situation. Including electricity, with 5 years of constant usage, going for intel CPUs will cost me a a third more money (total system cost) for similar performance with AMD CPUs. Intel's high-end CPUs are way too expensive.

I hope intel will come up with 8- or 10-core CPUs that are more affordable even though I know this is a very niche market.
 
Since haswell is a total bust on the performance front.

It looks like Ivy E is a better choice. Anyone think we will get 4.6ghz OC on these 6 cores?
 
Fx1 said:
Since haswell is a total bust on the performance front.

It looks like Ivy E is a better choice. Anyone think we will get 4.6ghz OC on these 6 cores?
Click to expand...

Better get better than 4.6. We already get that on SB-E...
 
Instead of updating his i7 system my cousin just built a xeon server in his basement for his heavy workload projects.

I think I'm going to do the same until we know more about Haswell & Broadwell.
 
Fx1 said:
Yeh but Sandy seems to clock better than Ivy.

I dont see haswell breaking 5ghz so id like to get Ivy 6 core up high also
Click to expand...

It does sound nice. I certainly wouldn't mind an easy drop in upgrade. Ivy-E @ 4.8 would be enough to make me buy one. I might be able to get my 3930k that high, but i'd have to buy a "real" water cooling setup and i'm just not interested in spending money on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top