Ivy Bridge models and clocks leaked

[boxleitnerb]

Corescn has some new info about IB:




Source: http://www.corescn.com/thread-1905-1-1.html


I expected 10-15% higher clocks compared to Sandy Bridge. A bit disappointed if this is true, I have to say.

 

[HendrixFan]

The TDP on the 3770K is a 20% improvement over the 2700K with the same clocks. I wouldn't be surprised to see 5Ghz being the standard overclock for that model.

 

[dma0991]

I wouldn't call it a disappointment based on the stock clocks alone. If these bad boys could go up to 5GHz or more with reasonable voltages, I'm sold. The IB may not have a lot of performance increase due to the fact that it is a die shrinked SB but the performance/watt has increased. An overclocked IB at 95W TDP would easily outperform a stock SB at 95W TDP.

 

[fastamdman]

I am still excited. Better overclocks hopefully, less heat output I am happy. I don't care if its a huge improvement or a slight one. Either way it will still stomp amd and thats why I will be upgrading to it lol.

 

[boxleitnerb]

But you know, how many people actually overclock their CPUs? And you can still only overclock 2 CPUs out of the whole lineup.

 

[OS]

HD4000 top integrated gpu

earlier info said it had more render units or whatever, but the clockspeeds look unchanged;

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4928/intel-releases-two-pentium-and-two-core-iseries-cpus

 

[dma0991]

But you know, how many people actually overclock their CPUs? And you can still only overclock 2 CPUs out of the whole lineup.

Just about anybody who enters this forum would overclock their CPU. 2 CPUs is sufficient and it is the price we pay for the lack of competition from AMD. It goes against the idea of overclocking by taking a cheap CPU and make it perform like an expensive one but like or not, we will have to live with what Intel wants.

I'm also more interested in how much improvement in terms of performance in the IGP end.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Just about anybody who enters this forum would overclock their CPU. 2 CPUs is sufficient and it is the price we pay for the lack of competition from AMD. It goes against the idea of overclocking by taking a cheap CPU and make it perform like an expensive one but like or not, we will have to live with what Intel wants.

I'm also more interested in how much improvement in terms of performance in the IGP end.

I meant in general, but I guess the average Joe doesn't care about more CPU power. Maybe Intel doesn't want to cannibalize their Sandy-E line.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Just about anybody who enters this forum would overclock their CPU. 2 CPUs is sufficient and it is the price we pay for the lack of competition from AMD. It goes against the idea of overclocking by taking a cheap CPU and make it perform like an expensive one but like or not, we will have to live with what Intel wants.

I'm also more interested in how much improvement in terms of performance in the IGP end.

Absolutely not true.

I used to be a big overclocker back in the day, but these days I prefer stability and ease of mind. Plus, I don't have the time that I did before to sit around and tinker for weeks to find that just right combination.

 

[COPOHawk]

I agree with OneOfTheseDays. I am currently using an OCd Q6600. When I go to replace it with an IB model, I doubt I will overclock it at all. Time and stability are too important to me as I use it for a work computer. Funny thing is that I don't really need to upgrade as the Q6600 (at 3.34 GHZ) is enough processor for me...thanks to the Intel SSD

 

[Olikan]

I wouldn't call it a disappointment based on the stock clocks alone. If these bad boys could go up to 5GHz or more with reasonable voltages, I'm sold. The IB may not have a lot of performance increase due to the fact that it is a die shrinked SB but the performance/watt has increased. An overclocked IB at 95W TDP would easily outperform a stock SB at 95W TDP.

i have to say that i already read some rumors that intels finfet just can't handle hight clocks, it creates too much heat. (but is awesome at low clocks)

i hope that's not true

 

[Zink]

Why are the 3770k turbo clocks 3.9Ghz, the same as SB? The architecture is the same so the only advantage will be the lower power use. The 3770T looks really nice for ITX sytems with 45W, full feature set and 3.7Ghz single core.

 

[Idontcare]

i have to say that i already read some rumors that intels finfet just can't handle hight clocks, it creates too much heat. (but is awesome at low clocks)

i hope that's not true

If the TDP's were the same as SB's then such a line of thinking might be plausible, but given they dropped the TDP's while still hitting the clockspeeds tells me these bins are being purely driven by marketing and not by capability.

 

[ed29a]

Just about anybody who enters this forum would overclock their CPU. 2 CPUs is sufficient and it is the price we pay for the lack of competition from AMD. It goes against the idea of overclocking by taking a cheap CPU and make it perform like an expensive one but like or not, we will have to live with what Intel wants.

I'm also more interested in how much improvement in terms of performance in the IGP end.

My 2500K and 1090T are both running on stock clock. I guess I am not cool or something

 

[ed29a]

i have to say that i already read some rumors that intels finfet just can't handle hight clocks, it creates too much heat. (but is awesome at low clocks)

i hope that's not true

BUT BUT BUT! We had CPU experts like Lol_Wut_Axel predicting 15% increased clock speed! I refuse to believe your rumors! I rather believe stuff people pull out of their behinds!

 

[lol123]

BUT BUT BUT! We had CPU experts like Lol_Wut_Axel predicting 15% increased clock speed! I refuse to believe your rumors! I rather believe stuff people pull out of their behinds!

Great response to a post whose basis in fact is "I read some rumors". We already knew you weren't that bright though.

 

[ed29a]

Great response to a post whose basis in fact is "I read some rumors". We already knew you weren't that bright though.

Exactly!

 

[Idontcare]

BUT BUT BUT! We had CPU experts like Lol_Wut_Axel predicting 15% increased clock speed! I refuse to believe your rumors! I rather believe stuff people pull out of their behinds!

I'm probably missing the context of Lol_Wut_Axel's claims, but I was under the impression that Intel themselves were guiding us to understand that their 22nm process enabled ~18% higher clockspeeds at the same (or better) power-consumption as their 32nm process?

This assumes a number of things regarding the differences between IB and SB in terms of xtor counts and so on, but fundamentally speaking the clockspeed improvment potential is there according to Intel.

 

[ed29a]

I'm probably missing the context of Lol_Wut_Axel's claims, but I was under the impression that Intel themselves were guiding us to understand that their 22nm process enabled ~18% higher clockspeeds at the same (or better) power-consumption as their 32nm process?

This assumes a number of things regarding the differences between IB and SB in terms of xtor counts and so on, but fundamentally speaking the clockspeed improvment potential is there according to Intel.

If we should believe these rumors, then stock clock of IB is pretty much the same as SB. So the 18% or so higher clock speed Intel touted are same as the Bulldozer IPC claims by AMD. Or (just speculation):

(1) These rumors are baloney and real deal is 18% better clock speed.
(2) Intel has/had issues with finfet, they can't raise the clock speed but have to release a product. Too much leaks? They absolutely want to maintain 77 watts and they hit a thermal wall? Cosmic rays (only half joking)?
(3) Intel crippling their own chips so the SB-E line stays top dog until IB-E.
(4) No competition from AMD, why bother?

 

[Kevmanw430]

It makes sense that IVB would get ~18% better clocks at the SAME TDP. But the 3770K is not the same TDP, its lower. It wouldn't suprise me that if they made a 95W IVB chip that it could hit ~18% higher clocks.

 

[Arachnotronic]

This gulftown of mine will be current for a very, very long time it seems...

 

[cbn]

I'm probably missing the context of Lol_Wut_Axel's claims, but I was under the impression that Intel themselves were guiding us to understand that their 22nm process enabled ~18% higher clockspeeds at the same (or better) power-consumption as their 32nm process?

This assumes a number of things regarding the differences between IB and SB in terms of xtor counts and so on, but fundamentally speaking the clockspeed improvment potential is there according to Intel.

If I understand that correctly, the 22nm Finfet xtor would actually be a much greater improvement over 32nm at lower voltages and lower frequencies? (see 37% faster at .7 volts)

If so, I am wondering if "Finfet" might be the first step towards Intel releasing wider/high IPC cores for the next generation? (re: Any decrease in performance per watt from a Higher IPC CPU core would be more than offset by the greater efficiency gains of the Finfet 3D xtor allowed to operate a lower voltage and lower frequency)

In other words, could the Haswell CPU core end up being the next generational improvement in CPU design with a lower stock CPU frequency?

 

[Spikesoldier]

im expecting at least 5ghz OCs out of IB

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Don't expect to see a massive improvement in performance with IB, thermals will improve but that's about it. I doubt Intel will be jacking up clockspeeds if there is no pressure to do so from AMD.

 

[Haserath]

Don't forget that Ivy will be getting a serious upgrade on the graphics part of the chip.
Anand also made an article on Ivy awhile ago:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4830/intels-ivy-bridge-architecture-exposed

A discrete card should cause the graphics part of the chip to be power gated; this should bring a bigger disparity between SB's and IB's TDP, and hopefully this will give IB an advantage for clocks.