Intel Ivy Bridge 22nm Speculation thread

[IndyColtsFan]

It seems like a lot people here think enthusiasts count for most of Intels revenue.

You're correct, and they're very wrong. The enthusiast group is an incredibly small percentage of customers. I don't even remember the last time I worked at a company that ordered systems with discrete graphics cards unless 1) a particular group used CAD or other heavy graphics packages or 2) systems with integrated graphics really didn't exist.

Comments like "integrated graphics on chip is a waste of die space" show that those particular people don't really understand who buys the most systems and the target audiences for those systems.

 

[Arkadrel]

i7 2600k HD3000 is a tiny bit faster than a 5450 isnt it?

5450 "Cedar" is a 12.8 GB/s bandwidth (if DDR3 version, less if DDR2) with ~104 GFlops.

5550 "Redwood LE", is a 12.8/25.4 GB/s Bandwidth (if DDR3 or DDR2) with ~ 352 GFlops.


Which means that Ivy Bridge if only 30% faster than the sandy bridges IGP, is still gonna be below a 5550 in performance.

Llano is gonna be 500+ Gflops ~ 5570 level.



Ivy bridge haveing 20% more CPU performance than the Sandy Brigde is nice though, Sandy Bridges are pretty strong performers even now, 20% on top of that will be nice.

 

[Spikesoldier]

I'd wager Ivy Bridge should all but guarantee a majority of the chips will do 5GHz with at least decent air cooling

thats what i was implying. right now 5.0 is still golden chip status, or youre opening your window of blizzards to keep the cpu cool.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Llano is gonna be 500+ Gflops ~ 5570 level.

FLOPs doesn't have much relation to actual 3D performance because there are other factors that also bottleneck the GPU. Last time I saw, doubling the shader performance nets you around 30-40% gain.

Ivy bridge haveing 20% more CPU performance than the Sandy Brigde is nice though, Sandy Bridges are pretty strong performers even now, 20% on top of that will be nice.

I think that 20% considers clock speed increases. After factoring that in, IPC increase might not even exist at all.

 

[Castiel]

What amd fan rated it with a single star?

 

[Markfw]

well, I just rated it 5. That will help offset

 

[Soleron]

I think that 20% considers clock speed increases. After factoring that in, IPC increase might not even exist at all.

Or even just 6 core SB to 8 core IB. Intel's done that kind of comparison before.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Or even just 6 core SB to 8 core IB. Intel's done that kind of comparison before.

If you track the original source, they say both uses the same number of cores for comparison.

 

[Makaveli]

I think this chip would be the next logical upgrade for anyone on Nehalem.

It would be about a 35-40% increase in IPC and much lower power consumption looks like a win.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

thats what i was implying. right now 5.0 is still golden chip status, or youre opening your window of blizzards to keep the cpu cool.

Keeping a 2600K or 2500K cool is not a problem after trying to keep an i7 9xx cool. The problem is simply running into a wall that requires too much voltage to get to 5.0 and too many volts will eventually kill the chip for 24/7 use regardless of temps.

 

[eric.kjellen]

You're correct, and they're very wrong. The enthusiast group is an incredibly small percentage of customers. I don't even remember the last time I worked at a company that ordered systems with discrete graphics cards unless 1) a particular group used CAD or other heavy graphics packages or 2) systems with integrated graphics really didn't exist.

Comments like "integrated graphics on chip is a waste of die space" show that those particular people don't really understand who buys the most systems and the target audiences for those systems.

You forget that most motherboards have integrated graphics in the chipset. On-die graphics is a waste of die space for both enthusiasts and professionals who use discrete graphics and for those for whom motherboard graphics are enough (the vast majority of users).

 

[IntelUser2000]

You forget that most motherboards have integrated graphics in the chipset. On-die graphics is a waste of die space for both enthusiasts and professionals who use discrete graphics and for those for whom motherboard graphics are enough (the vast majority of users).

Except, it only seems like a waste, and it isn't one. Because the people who will use the integrated graphics is a majority, its already "paid off". By having say, extra CPU functions and not serving those majority of the people, the incremental cost of adding the GPU would have easily have been offset by the less volume of people buying them.

So noone should be worried about the die space being "wasted".

 

[bigboxes]

You forget that most motherboards have integrated graphics in the chipset. On-die graphics is a waste of die space for both enthusiasts and professionals who use discrete graphics and for those for whom motherboard graphics are enough (the vast majority of users).

You forget that most motherboards that will support this cpu won't have a separate chip with integrated graphics. It will be on die for now on. Much cheaper and efficient. You don't want to use it? Either turn it off or (most likely) your enthusiast motherboard will disable it. You need to change your mindset and not be so rigid in your thinking. Things are changing. I'll be using discrete graphics, but I'm in the minority and becoming more so every day.

 

[Dice144]

Not sure what the big deal is with on die IGP. If you do not wanna use it don't.

 

[RobDickinson]

I guess the deal is it adds to the cost and wasts silicon which could have another couple of cores or more cache on.

From Intels POV there going to earn more money because they have a competent IGP than an extra core.

 

[Rifter]

I dont really get the IGP thing either. Of course from a entusiast POV its the stupidest thing ever, of course we want more cache or more cores. From a Intel POV its great as it means 90%+ of users will have a good enough GPU that they dont need to buy discreet and im sure it will improve sales.

The answer is simple, if a enthusiast buy x58/x68(or whatever 2011 chipset happens to be). Its the entusiast platform, will have no IGP, unlocked FSB for overclocking and more full speed PCI'e lanes for multiple GPU setups. The IGP thing doesnt even matter if the entusiast stays on the entusiast platform.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Hmmm... be surprised if P67 boards supported Ivy.

 

[mv2devnull]

I guess the deal is it adds to the cost and wasts silicon which could have another couple of cores or more cache on.

From Intels POV there going to earn more money because they have a competent IGP than an extra core.

At this point we do see three places where graphics chip can lurk: on die, on motherboard, and on card. It is dead certain who gets the money from IGP on die.

GPGPU. Use of GPU for "general purposes". Not as generic as CPU though, but rather adept for some algorithms, like video encoding. Furthermore, Intel's IGP offers a bit different edge to it than the discrete cards. Therefore, with suitable applications and needs, the IGP does add more than regular cores would. This naturally does not apply to the enthusiast, who has never enough cores nor GPU power, and upgrades them separately.


Now, if Ivy is a shrink and still (partly) on 1155, it cannot have more PCIe outwards, can it? There is only so much GPU's that one can link up. IGP will be on top of that (provided that it is not blocked, like in P67).

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Then we come to the Socket LGA1356, a direct replacement for the current Socket LGA1366. The parts here are 6-core and 8-core Sandy Bridge single-socket and dual-socket capable but midrange positioned Sandy Bridge Xeon - and, ultimately, Core i7 - parts with up to 20MB of L3 cache, three DDR3-1600 memory channels just like the existing LGA1366 Westmeres with one memory speed grade higher, and 24 PCIe v3 lanes on-chip. The single external QPI v2 link runs at up to 8 gigatransfers/sec, or 32GB/sec bidirectional bandwidth, a 25 per cent speed up over the current generation, but also feeding a third more cores on each socket.
The highest speed 8-core CPUs with up to 150W TDP should, however, be reserved for the high-end Socket LGA2011. With more power and ground lines to support 40 PCIe v3 lanes and four DDR-1600 memory channels per socket, as well as dual QPI 8 gigatransfers/sec links, the 8-core, 20MB L3 cache Sandy Bridge-based Xeons should have sufficient system bandwidth to feed even the highest workloads. Not to mention enough PCIe bandwidth for two dual-GPU cards with extra lanes still free for a, say, 5GB/sec PCIe high-speed SSD or Infiniband interconnect.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/1811091/2011-intel-xeon-update-holy-socket-trinity

 

[IntelUser2000]

I was about to comment on the Inquirer article until I looked at the date. That's October from last year!

Track record of many sites that could be trusted with rumors is being really bad nowadays. The guys at AMD and Intel sure at good at throwing the speculators off their feet.

 

[Rifter]

i dont think the 1356 socket will ever exsist. Has been way to long since it was mentioned last. All the talk lately has been about LGA 2011 for the entusiast/server class chips.

 

[PreferLinux]

Hmmm... be surprised if P67 boards supported Ivy.

P55 supported i5 6xx and i3, which were the die shrink. X58 supports i7 980X and 970 which are the the die shrink. So why wouldn't the P67 support Ivy Bridge, which, once again is the die shrink???

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Well we knew about Sandy Bridge since when.......

 

[Castiel]

]

There is no 1356 coming. Its a link from october of last year. Also were talking about ivy bridge. 1155 will be getting ivy bridge before 2011 will.

 

[StinkyPinky]

One good thing about consoles slowing down graphics progress is that it allows integrated stuff to catch up. An 18EU ivy bridge graphics option will actually run a game at decent framerates at mid-settings imo which is amazing engineering considering how much power they cram into a small space