Ivy Bridge rumored to have SI memory technology

[IntelUser2000]

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/12/29/intel-puts-gpu-memory-ivy-bridge/

Basically, its a memory-on-package. With LPDDR2 at 800MHz and its supposed 512-bit width, that equals to 51.2GB/s bandwidth with even lower latency than today's CPUs with integrated memory controllers. With capacities of 512MB-1GB it'll really signify next step in integration.

Some of you might remember me saying Haswell generation should have main memory on CPU of some kind. If Ivy Bridge can bring it onto the package using Silicon Interposer technology, by Haswell or Rockwell we might see full stacked memory chips.

It also signifies next step for integrated graphics. 51.2GB/s = 4 channel DDR3-1600. When they improve manufacturing on this tech we'll see them with several hundred GB/s of bandwidth real soon. By then integrated graphics will be firmly within mid range graphics performance.

 

[grimpr]

Does anyone sensed already a pungent stench out of Socket 1155 or is it only me?

 

[Dark Shroud]

Does anyone sensed already a pungent stench out of Socket 1155 or is it only me?

Like the name implies it's only going to have a 2 year life span like the 1156.

This is why I like Intel, the publish the information so we know how long the tech is giong to be supported and what will come next.

 

[Rifter]

Like the name implies it's only going to have a 2 year life span like the 1156.

This is why I like Intel, the publish the information so we know how long the tech is giong to be supported and what will come next.

I agree, much better than AMD's method of lying to customers. Yeah everyone jump on the new AM3 8xx chipsets it will support bulldozer dont worry. Then later after suckering the customers in they tell us all sorry we lied you need to buy AM3+ now.

While i totally understand why you need to change sockets to add new features and tech, You dont lie to the customers.

 

[nanaki333]

I agree, much better than AMD's method of lying to customers. Yeah everyone jump on the new AM3 8xx chipsets it will support bulldozer dont worry. Then later after suckering the customers in they tell us all sorry we lied you need to buy AM3+ now.

While i totally understand why you need to change sockets to add new features and tech, You dont lie to the customers.

and with their recent track record, people had no reason not to believe AMD. heck, i thought a couple of my AM3 machines were future proof for bulldozer. after all, i had an old nforce chipset AM2 board that supported the first phenom (up to 95W) when they came out.

 

[Rubycon]

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/12/29/intel-puts-gpu-memory-ivy-bridge/

It also signifies next step for integrated graphics. 51.2GB/s = 4 channel DDR3-1600. When they improve manufacturing on this tech we'll see them with several hundred GB/s of bandwidth real soon. By then integrated graphics will be firmly within mid range graphics performance.

Until they can match the performance of QuadroFX6000 w/6GB I much prefer a dedicated solution.

The reduced latency is nice but we desperately need 64GB+ support in a entry level (single socket) workstation platform.

 

[Rifter]

and with their recent track record, people had no reason not to believe AMD. heck, i thought a couple of my AM3 machines were future proof for bulldozer. after all, i had an old nforce chipset AM2 board that supported the first phenom (up to 95W) when they came out.

I was dissapointed as well, every other PC in my home(htpc, server, gf's comp) other than my rig in sig is AM2+/AM3. Guess they will all be stuck with 6 core thubans as their upgrade path. Im not happy with AMD right now, not only for the socket fiasco but they cant come up with anything to compete with intel in the $200+ price range so intel gets to rape us for golftown and SB prices.

 

[Dark Shroud]

I have a I'll believe it when I see it approach to both Intel & AMD. I was burned with a LGA 775 board and I've seen people burned with AM2+ not being upgradeable. Granted I didn't think I'd be able to replace my P4 with a C2Q but I was expecting at least a PD and that didn't happen.

With those AMD boards its usually the manufactures' fault not upgrading the bios when the hardware supports it. I'm not going to get hurt over the whole AM3 vs AM3+ issue since AMD at least released hexa-core CPUs for AM3. And thier low end are cheap with the chance of core unlocking. Just as long as AMD doesn't make that same mistake again anytime soon in the next few years.

Intel is a different story. In my case I actually have an Intel board. I didn't know that Intel has been letting 3rd parties (Foxcon) make their mobos for years. The chipsets were the cheapest they could use. Same for the Intel board in my sister's C2D PC.

So I didn't buy LGA 1156, I will be buying LGA 1155 2600k next week since I can't wait for LGA 2011. Unless something happens I'll be on that until I can buy an Ivy Bridge Octo-core.

 

[exar333]

I was dissapointed as well, every other PC in my home(htpc, server, gf's comp) other than my rig in sig is AM2+/AM3. Guess they will all be stuck with 6 core thubans as their upgrade path. Im not happy with AMD right now, not only for the socket fiasco but they cant come up with anything to compete with intel in the $200+ price range so intel gets to rape us for golftown and SB prices.

So $200-300 breaks the bank for a CPU? Intel is replacing the same price points today with faster SB SKUs. Sure these new CPUs are not $100, but we aren't talking $500 to get into a SB CPU.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I agree, much better than AMD's method of lying to customers. Yeah everyone jump on the new AM3 8xx chipsets it will support bulldozer dont worry. Then later after suckering the customers in they tell us all sorry we lied you need to buy AM3+ now.

While i totally understand why you need to change sockets to add new features and tech, You dont lie to the customers.

Please, Intel does the same. Do you really think that SB couldn't be 1156 socket?

Intel just didn't want it to be.

In a way one can say that profit driven business intentions are WORSE then a lie.

Fact is, AMD and Intel are both businesses with goal of selling more and more CPUs.

^_^

 

[nanaki333]

Please, Intel does the same. Do you really think that SB couldn't be 1156 socket?

Intel just didn't want it to be.

In a way one can say that profit driven business intentions are WORSE then a lie.

^_^

and then anybody wanting ivy will have to buy yet ANOTHER new board. pissed me right off when intel released 1156 after i had my 1366.

 

[Vdubchaos]

and then anybody wanting ivy will have to buy yet ANOTHER new board. pissed me right off when intel released 1156 after i had my 1366.

I wouldn't sweat it and live with the 1366. It's a great socket and I'm sure it does the job JUST fine.

don't buy into the entire "latest and greatest BS"/get SB now. Sure it's better, and even if SB offers 10-20% speed upgrade it will be up to you to determine is 10-20% is worth $800-1500 PC upgrade.

Now you see why I'm not a fanboi of ANY company/business. They are all in it for money and in MOST cases their "new products" really = minimal gain to keep the sales #s growing....at the expense of Earth resources/environmental damage it takes to produce/recycle older products etc.

Leaves me with sour taste to be honest, but it's our great "democracy" hehe

 

[Dark Shroud]

Please, Intel does the same. Do you really think that SB couldn't be 1156 socket?

Intel just didn't want it to be.

There are several differences between Sandy Bridge and Lanyo or whatever 1156 CPUs are called, starting with voltage in the chip. There are reasons more than just money for not reusing the same socket with a newer architecture.

It comes down to three options: new socket with new designs so as not to be held back, design a bigger more expensive socket to be carried forward that new designs have to work within, or just release die shrunk versions with lower power usage & maybe more cores.

and then anybody wanting ivy will have to buy yet ANOTHER new board. pissed me right off when intel released 1156 after i had my 1366.

That makes no sense at all. LGA 1366 is the better socket that will still get support for years because its used in servers.

 

[Rifter]

Please, Intel does the same. Do you really think that SB couldn't be 1156 socket?

Intel just didn't want it to be.

In a way one can say that profit driven business intentions are WORSE then a lie.

Fact is, AMD and Intel are both businesses with goal of selling more and more CPUs.

^_^

I agree, but intel never said that SB would be 1156. AMD said BD would work with AM3. Both companies are bad for requiring new sockets but with intel i think you have a better idea where you stand, just assume you need a new socket for every major change

 

[Rifter]

That makes no sense at all. LGA 1366 is the better socket that will still get support for years because its used in servers.

I agree with this, why would you want to go to 1156 after 1366? why would 1156 matter to you if you were already on 1366? 1366 at least got gulftowns and triple channel memory, and more PCIe lanes. Its a Superior socket to 1156.

 

[jones377]

nice thread derailement guys

 

[cbn]

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/12/29/intel-puts-gpu-memory-ivy-bridge/

Basically, its a memory-on-package. With LPDDR2 at 800MHz and its supposed 512-bit width, that equals to 51.2GB/s bandwidth with even lower latency than today's CPUs with integrated memory controllers. With capacities of 512MB-1GB it'll really signify next step in integration.

Some of you might remember me saying Haswell generation should have main memory on CPU of some kind. If Ivy Bridge can bring it onto the package using Silicon Interposer technology, by Haswell or Rockwell we might see full stacked memory chips.

It also signifies next step for integrated graphics. 51.2GB/s = 4 channel DDR3-1600. When they improve manufacturing on this tech we'll see them with several hundred GB/s of bandwidth real soon. By then integrated graphics will be firmly within mid range graphics performance.

Really interesting article. Definitely waiting to see what happens with GPGPU and 3D chip stacking (in general).

 

[CosmicMight]

Really interesting article. Definitely waiting to see what happens with GPGPU and 3D chip stacking (in general).

Yes, enough with the derailment, this is very cool. Probably still won't give most people on this board what they are looking for with an integrated solution in terms of horsepower, but it's nice to see it's coming.

 

[IntelUser2000]

The lowered latency, even 10% that is offered by cheap Clarkdale-like solution should give few % performance increase on the CPU side. The biggest gainers with this tech should be the high end server, like the MP Xeon chips and the integrated graphics parts.

 

[nyker96]

nice! do I even need a HD if they manage to integrate a TB of that stuff?

 

[RussianSensation]

By then integrated graphics will be firmly within mid range graphics performance.

You realize that mid-range graphics by then will be GTX660 or HD7850, etc. For example, after all the hype with SB graphics, it will be no better than HD5470, or the lowest NV 400M series, which is frankly awful. Sure it's better than intel graphics of the past, but that doesn't say much...

Basically we all better pray that Bulldozer or some other AMD architecture comes along and finally blows the doors off Intel's CPUs so we get some progress in the CPU space. Until this happens or Intel releases a 6+ core $300 processor, I am dumping all my upgrade $ set aside on SSDs and/or new graphics cards only.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

You realize that mid-range graphics by then will be GTX660 or HD7850, etc. For example, after all the hype with SB graphics, it will be no better than HD5470, or the lowest NV 400M series, which is frankly awful. Sure it's better than intel graphics of the past, but that doesn't say much...

Right. It sounds like this only betters the IGP. Better IGP's really only look appealing to the laptop gamer. Where's the benefit for the desktop crowd? If a discrete card and the IGP could somehow work concurrently, then we'd really have something.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Right. It sounds like this only betters the IGP. Better IGP's really only look appealing to the laptop gamer. Where's the benefit for the desktop crowd? Slghtly less hassle in dealing with a discrete card for the light gamer?

I'm going to answer you and Russian Sensation.

1. I'm being general. If non-package memory processor integrated graphics can do HD5450 level, the same chip with the package memory might do a level better, say GTX 430 or 5570. If non-package graphics can do GTX 430/5570 level, they will do a level better than that too. Really the biggest bottleneck for IGPs going above such performance is memory bandwidth

2. If you don't use the graphics at all, the massive memory on package should improve CPU performance. Even by a little.

 

[Rifter]

I'm going to answer you and Russian Sensation.

1. I'm being general. If non-package memory processor integrated graphics can do HD5450 level, the same chip with the package memory might do a level better, say GTX 430 or 5570. If non-package graphics can do GTX 430/5570 level, they will do a level better than that too. Really the biggest bottleneck for IGPs going above such performance is memory bandwidth

2. If you don't use the graphics at all, the massive memory on package should improve CPU performance. Even by a little.

I agree this tech would have its place but i dont think its going to compete with mid to high end discreet GPU's though.

I hope they release a package with no IGP and lots of ram on die though, that would be cool.