IB is not 77W but 95W!!

[Don Karnage]

Mine can do 5ghz on air.

Show me :biggrin:

 

[VirtualLarry]

CPUs are so powerful nowadays its hard to find a real world application that can keep it at TDP levels. As such, modern CPUs stay far under TDP.

Distributed Computing?

 

[kidsafe]

Show me :biggrin:

He doesn't need to. It's not that uncommon. My 2600K does 4.8GHz w/HT and 5.0GHz w/o HT on 1.424V. The NH-D14 or any high-end tower cooler can handle that.

That's through 24h of Prime95 Blend and also IBT w/AVX.

My chip is slightly above average I guess...there are 2500Ks that do 5GHz on 1.4V or so.

 

[AdamK47]

Show me :biggrin:

Why on Earth did you go from SB-E to IB?

 

[Bman123]

So damn what? Almost everyone here is going to overclock the piss out of those chips anyways and will see higher wattage then stock.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Why on Earth did you go from SB-E to IB?

Single threaded improvement?

 

[BD231]

So damn what? Almost everyone here is going to overclock the piss out of those chips anyways and will see higher wattage then stock.

" At 4.6 - 4.7 Ghz the temperature gets so high the processor throttles "

But but, Ivy is just as fast as a higher clocked sandy at 4.6ghz ... clearly just because it hits 80c at 1.24v doesn't mean a thing... screw all these retail samples we have floating around lets wait till reviewers get their cherry picked chips. Ivy is teh ish people are just ignorant.

 

[Puppies04]

" At 4.6 - 4.7 Ghz the temperature gets so high the processor throttles "

But but, Ivy is just as fast as a higher clocked sandy at 4.6ghz ... clearly just because it hits 80c at 1.24v doesn't mean a thing... screw all these retail samples we have floating around lets wait till reviewers get their cherry picked chips. Ivy is teh ish people are just ignorant.

Are you finished with the axe grinder? I need it for another thread....

 

[BallaTheFeared]

OMG Ivy Bridge is terrible, who wants to buy 5.3GHz SB? I'm going Piledriver!

 

[hyrule4927]

Definitely glad I just bought a 2600K.

 

[BFG10K]

The explanation they gave about die size makes no sense. A smaller die size not being able to dissipate heat as well might make temperatures increase but it won’t increase the actual power the processor uses, AKA TDP.

Ivy Bridge is basically a die-shrunk Sandy Bridge. They didn’t add any features on it to make it use significantly more power and offset that die shrink.

 

[IntelUser2000]

The explanation they gave about die size makes no sense.

I think that's because most of the people have this erroneous idea that TDP is solely about thermals, when in reality it refers to max power usage, which in turn relates to thermals in small chassis systems like Notebooks.

 

[BD231]

Are you finished with the axe grinder? I need it for another thread....

All yours buddy, just be sure and get the tuning protection plan in case you break it.

 

[StinkyPinky]

IB was never going to be very exciting for desktops. IB is all about mobile computing. 7% improvement in IPC and big gains on the GPU whilst drawing less power is a big deal on laptops.

 

[Vesku]

Perhaps they are labeling it as 95W TDP to account for it needing better cooling at lower power draw than SB?

 

[grkM3]

Every sandy b chip will do 5ghz without throttling.this board is just afraid to give them over 1.5 volts to do it.my es ivy hit close to 5.2 but would hit 98c with high end water cooling within in 5 seconds of intel burn test.

This 95w tdp could explain the price cuts

 

[Mars999]

I am also wondering if this heat issue has anything to do with the IGPU running or not? I can see it causing more heat than one that wouldn't use it at all... Meaning is IB using the IGPU more for general task vs. SB was?

 

[Makaveli]

I don't see what the big deal is IvY is a Tick none of you with SB chips should even been looking at it.

The next upgrades for you probably won't be until Haswell or its tick.

Your 2600k or 2500k won't all of a sudden turn slow.

And adam only a fool would go SB-E to IB lol

That would be like going from a 6 core phenom II to a 4 core BD = Fail!

 

[alyarb]

If IB runs warmer, yet consumes less power than SB, doesn't that only speak to a reduction in heat flux? From where I sit that's a good thing. I'm not trying to run 5 GHz at 1.5v, I just want 4 GHz at under 1v.

For others, if your OC is about the same and the CPU is holding onto a tad more heat rather than dumping it into your environment, while consuming less power and performing better... that should be fine for 100% non-enthusiasts and at least 90% of enthusiasts. They aren't restricted by heat in their OCing anyway, so better to leverage the heat capacity slightly because it doesn't hurt anything.

As long as it doesn't affect your OC, would you rather have a hot room and a cold CPU, or a warm CPU and a comfortable room?

 

[Skott]

As bad as it is that Ivy Bridge failed, AMD needs that leeway to catch up.

It won't be enough. AMD is so far behind its not funny. Intel would have to screw up IB and their next CPU as well I'm thinking before AMD could get into position. Besides, IB is not a failure yet. I kinda laugh how people are whining IB is not hitting 5GHz like they want. Like 4.6GHz is not enough?? <insert laughing face here>

 

[Don Karnage]

It won't be enough. AMD is so far behind its not funny. Intel would have to screw up IB and their next CPU as well I'm thinking before AMD could get into position. Besides, IB is not a failure yet. I kinda laugh how people are whining IB is not hitting 5GHz like they want. Like 4.6GHz is not enough?? <insert laughing face here>

Ivy is going to be amazing on extreme cooling. The whiners are just people who are too cheap to spend the money on some better cooling

 

[Lonyo]

The explanation they gave about die size makes no sense. A smaller die size not being able to dissipate heat as well might make temperatures increase but it won’t increase the actual power the processor uses, AKA TDP.

Ivy Bridge is basically a die-shrunk Sandy Bridge. They didn’t add any features on it to make it use significantly more power and offset that die shrink.

As shown by IDC, higher heat = higher power, so actually it would increase the actual power use.
That doesn't mean it is the explanation for the increase in TDP, but it can't be ruled out that they are running hotter than anticipated and that's contributed to an increase in power consumption.

Also it's only one model so far that indicates it, like others have said.

I find it very unlikely that Intel will release a batch of 95W CPUs while they are still refining the manufacturing process and in a few months the same CPUs will be 77W. That's what they spend all those months doing QA, validation and testing for. Smells more like BS to me at the moment.

AMD have done that in the past. Released model X with e.g. 125w TDP, and then released the same spec processor with a 95w TDP a little way down the line with a new stepping, so it's not unthinkable.

 

[BFG10K]

As shown by IDC, higher heat = higher power, so actually it would increase the actual power use.

They’ve not shown there’s higher heat. Heat is not the same as temperature; heat is measure in Joules, not C.

All they’ve shown is temperature and you can’t infer anything about TDP from that alone.

That doesn't mean it is the explanation for the increase in TDP, but it can't be ruled out that they are running hotter than anticipated and that's contributed to an increase in power consumption.

Again, their explanation makes no sense. You can’t infer that a higher temperature means a higher TDP.

Take a passively cooled Intel IGP on air and a GTX580 in a liquid nitrogen bath. Because the GTX580 has a lower temperature does that mean it uses less power than the Intel IGP? Nope, of course not, because temperature alone doesn’t tell you anything power consumption.

A smaller die might make it harder for the heatsink to draw heat away (AKA higher temperature) but the processor is still using the same amount of power regardless.

 

[blckgrffn]

They&#8217;ve not shown there&#8217;s higher heat. Heat is not the same as temperature; heat is measure in Joules, not C.

All they&#8217;ve shown is temperature and you can&#8217;t infer anything about TDP from that alone.


Again, their explanation makes no sense. You can&#8217;t infer that a higher temperature means a higher TDP.

Take a passively cooled Intel IGP on air and a GTX580 in a liquid nitrogen bath. Because the GTX580 has a lower temperature does that mean it uses less power than the Intel IGP? Nope, of course not, because temperature alone doesn&#8217;t tell you anything power consumption.

A smaller die might make it harder for the heatsink to draw heat away (AKA higher temperature) but the processor is still using the same amount of power regardless.

I think IDC showed definitively that this is not the case?

If a chip is running hotter (temperature) it will use more power than it would if it was cooled to a lower temperature for a given clock speed and voltage.

So, if they are running hot at higher clocks, they are going to get wasteful with the power.

 

[BFG10K]

If a chip is running hotter (temperature) it will use more power than it would if it was cooled to a lower temperature for a given clock speed and voltage.

We aren't talking about the same chip, we're talking about SB vs IB. To make the inference that IB uses more power simply because it runs hotter is invalid.

A 4850 has a higher temperature than a 4870:

Following your reasoning, I guess you think the 4850 uses more power? Because it doesn't - it actually uses 29W less under load:

The 4850 and 4870 are also on the same process node and the same generation as well, unlike SB vs IB.

Again, you can't infer anything about power usage solely on temperature. The cooler could be different, ambient temperature could be different, etc.