• 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.

Frustrated with intel… Where are the 8 core CPUs?

ComputerGuy2006

ComputerGuy2006

Member
I am stuck on old technology (lga 1366)... My problem is I do not have an upgrade path. LGA 2011 only has 6 core CPU (even tho 1366 had it over two years ago) while ivy with its 3d transistors doesn't even have 6 core (and even if it did it would only be dual channel).

Whats going on with intel? I could maybe rationalize a 6 core ivy, but why would they not offer an 8 core LGA 2011? Especially considering its available on the server side of things.

Its frustrating that for months I have had money allocated to a high end PC yet nothing to realistically spend it on. Does Intel not want our money? What do they gain from not releasing a 8 core CPU?
 
Why would you go for six-core Ivy Bridge and not six-core Sandy Bridge? It's the same core with a die shrink applied to it. If an Ivy Bridge CPU were released on LGA 2011, (it will be - Ivy Bridge-E may not happen, but Ivy Bridge-EX/EP are on the way) it will feature quad-channel RAM just as all LGA 2011 CPUs do. Also like other LGA 2011 CPUs, memory bandwidth won't benefit the average user at all. Quad-core Sandy Bridge is perfectly happy on dual-channel DDR3-1066, after all.

If you really want to throw money down the toilet, buy this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117272

Any eight-core Sandy Bridge unit would just be a rebranded Xeon, after all. LGA 2011 is a server platform that Intel repurposes and sells as "enthusiast," despite the fact it doesn't offer the average "enthusiast" (read: gamer) any real advantage.
 
moonbogg said:
Sandy bridge-E is much faster than 1366 CPUs..just saying. Otherwise go with Xeon.
Click to expand...

Sandy Bridge-E is as much faster than Bloomfield as any Sandy Bridge core is faster than any Nehalem core. Per clock, the difference usually tops out at 15%. Nehalem usually peaks at 4.0 GHz, though - Sandy Bridge makes it to 4.5 GHz regularly, so there's a potential 12.5% clock speed increase.

If you're comparing six-core CPUs, however, performance gains will be a bit less significant. You're pretty much stuck with the <15% increase in per-clock performance and potentially an extra 100-200 MHz clock speed. Westmere overclocks almost as well as Sandy Bridge.
 
Homeles said:
I don't see why there wouldn't be an 8 core Ivy on 2011. Still, IB-E isn't going to come out till the second half of next year if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...

I got ants, so that's a long time to wait.

Homeles said:
What are you doing with your computer that's so thread-intensive anyways?
Click to expand...

x264 encoding, many images sometimes and folding.

pantsaregood said:
Why would you go for six-core Ivy Bridge and not six-core Sandy Bridge?
Click to expand...

Ivy overall is cheaper + it clock for clock faster.

pantsaregood said:
Any eight-core Sandy Bridge unit would just be a rebranded Xeon, after all. LGA 2011 is a server platform that Intel repurposes and sells as "enthusiast," despite the fact it doesn't offer the average "enthusiast" (read: gamer) any real advantage.
Click to expand...

Those xeon are very expensive considering their low clock rates. But even if they release a 8 core consumer grade CPU it wont be as much of a rip off as the Xeons and I can use consumer grade components...

But you sort of hit the nail on the head here... LGA 2011 is a bit of a ripoff price wise. That leaves me with either getting low end equipment with ivy or paying a premium for lga 2011 on the high end even tho im not getting high end equipment.
 
The speed difference between Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge is anywhere from 0-6%. Ivy Bridge is a die shrink, and shouldn't be regarded as anything more. If Sandy Bridge cores aren't fast enough for you, then you should honestly just wait for Haswell.

Also, 3.1 GHz isn't really a low clock speed. The fastest i7s run at 3.6 GHz stock - only a 16% difference in clock speed.

There isn't anything "consumer grade" about either LGA 2011 or LGA 1366. They were both designed as server platforms. They just happened to rebrand a few Xeons as "Core" CPUs to take advantage of the consumer market that would buy into an "enthusiast" platform. There's honestly no real reason for Intel to segment their consumer level products into "mainstream" and "enthusiast" platforms.

Xeon prices are actually pretty comparable to six-core i7 prices, by the way. Xeon E5-1660 runs at 3.3 GHz and turbos up to 3.9 GHz. It is essentially the same CPU as the 3960X without an unlocked multiplier and with added SMP support. It runs $1069, which is only slightly more than the 3960X.
 
Buy a bulldozer, its got 8 cores.

200px-Trollface.svg.png
 
Rifter said:
In that case where is my 6 core IB chip then, if you are cutting out the enthusiast platform then not having a mainstream 6 core is just sad, especially since its a step backward, SB had 6 cores afterall.
Click to expand...

Since SB-E got PCIe 3.0. What exactly is Intel cutting you from besides lower power consumption?
 
ShintaiDK said:
Since SB-E got PCIe 3.0. What exactly is Intel cutting you from besides lower power consumption?
Click to expand...

22nm and lower power consumtion would be nice. Oh and some real SATA ports, only 2 SATA 3 ports on SB-E is kinda sad for the Enthusiast platform, especially since thats the same layout as your mainstream platforms SATA ports. And Native USB 3.

Edit to add, i would settle for a 1155 6 core ivy, even with the lack of a decent amount of sata 3 ports. If you are going to axe the enthusiast platform at least release a enthusiast CPU even if its for your mainstream platform.
 
Last edited:
So essentially you complain about 20-30W while buying...enthutiast?

People buying LGA2011 should know its a downgarded workstation/server platform. And not an often updated desktop/mobile platform.
 
8 core chips don't make sense to mass produce on the consumer side when a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of users will actually use one.

Also, "core" count is in no way a performance metric...

I am on the top end of CPU use, and a quad+HT is plenty for me. Scaling out is not the answer when scaling up helps *every* process, while scaling out beyond that helps so few.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Since SB-E got PCIe 3.0. What exactly is Intel cutting you from besides lower power consumption?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure SB-E is only PCIE 2, the boards may be PCIE 3 but they need an ivy bridge chip to actually make use of it because sandy only supports PCIE 2 on die.
 
ComputerGuy2006 said:
Those xeon are very expensive considering their low clock rates. But even if they release a 8 core consumer grade CPU it wont be as much of a rip off as the Xeons and I can use consumer grade components... But you sort of hit the nail on the head here... LGA 2011 is a bit of a ripoff price wise. That leaves me with either getting low end equipment with ivy or paying a premium for lga 2011 on the high end even tho im not getting high end equipment.
Click to expand...

So you are just another one who wants super high end equipment without paying for it. Seems to be a lot of that here.
 
Just get two computers and split the workload. That will still be cheaper than getting an 8-core or going dual-socket.
 
eVGA SR-X + 2* Intel 8-core Xeons + overlock = more than enough cores.
If you actually need that much compute on a single node, then the price shouldn't be an issue.

Otherwise, set up multiple computers as jhu recommends, many lower end boxes is more cost-efficient in terms of compute than a single powerful node.
 
Ayah said:
eVGA SR-X + 2* Intel 8-core Xeons + overlock = more than enough cores.
If you actually need that much compute on a single node, then the price shouldn't be an issue.

Otherwise, set up multiple computers as jhu recommends, many lower end boxes is more cost-efficient in terms of compute than a single powerful node.
Click to expand...

Can't overclock Xeon E5 chips.
 
Just wait for Haswell. It will be a lot cheaper to get a quad-core Haswell with twice the throughput per core than to get a weak 8-core Sandy Bridge. It will be more power efficient and clock higher too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top