- Status
darkstar845
Distinguished
- Mar 29, 2010
- 230
- 1
- 18,680
I'm going to skip ivy bridge and just wait for Haswell, hoping that it will be a great improvement, my i7 930 is still good for me and for the games I play. My plan would be to go with intel Haswell or AMD(if they magically dominate intel again) and the 2nd generation of 28nm GPUs, either Nvidia or AMD.
[citation][nom]confish21[/nom]I predict the I5 3550, the predecessor of the I5 2400, will be a tank.[/citation]
actually that is the one that has my interest. if its only a few bucks more than the 3470 and a small bump in the bclk (103-very reasonable) gets it to a 3570 speed, it could be a bargain.
actually that is the one that has my interest. if its only a few bucks more than the 3470 and a small bump in the bclk (103-very reasonable) gets it to a 3570 speed, it could be a bargain.
[citation][nom]dimar[/nom]All those releases are boring... What I want is instant processing! When can I encode 2h of 8k 120fps 100Mbps video using h.265 encoder in less than a second??[/citation]
Make an algorithm that can do this in a very parallel manner.
New possibilities for parallelism: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27598/
Then buy hundreds of the fastest FPGA's in existence.
THen assemble the fpga's, load your algorithm and start coding.
Make an algorithm that can do this in a very parallel manner.
New possibilities for parallelism: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27598/
Then buy hundreds of the fastest FPGA's in existence.
THen assemble the fpga's, load your algorithm and start coding.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]noobalert[/nom]Should I get the i7-3770K, and a z77 Mobo, or get the i7-3930K and a x79 now?or will the price of the Sandy Bridge-E gear go down a little after Ivy Bridge launch?[/citation]
Considering that SB-E and IB are for different markets, that depends on what you do with your computer. SB-E will not play games any better than SB and IB unless games become more mult-threaded very soon and I doubt that well-threaded games will be the norm at least until IB-E comes out.
Remember folks, Ivy also has slightly improved IPC so it's MHz is not quite the same as Sandy MHz and that the Sandy laptop quad core CPUs didn't hit 2.5GHz and 2.7GHz until fairly recently. The 2.7GHz SB i7 EEs for laptops came out only a few months ago or so, not like the other laptop SB CPUs that came out months before it. We will probably see faster i7s for the laptops later on too.
Also, Ivy Bridge i7 K editions might get very close when overclocked even to an overclocked 980X and 990X in highly threaded work. Ivy should overclock better than Sandy and Sandy already hit higher cocks than any Nehalem/Westmere derivatives could and Ivy has more IPC.
Ivy seems to be a worthy successor to Sandy.
Considering that SB-E and IB are for different markets, that depends on what you do with your computer. SB-E will not play games any better than SB and IB unless games become more mult-threaded very soon and I doubt that well-threaded games will be the norm at least until IB-E comes out.
Remember folks, Ivy also has slightly improved IPC so it's MHz is not quite the same as Sandy MHz and that the Sandy laptop quad core CPUs didn't hit 2.5GHz and 2.7GHz until fairly recently. The 2.7GHz SB i7 EEs for laptops came out only a few months ago or so, not like the other laptop SB CPUs that came out months before it. We will probably see faster i7s for the laptops later on too.
Also, Ivy Bridge i7 K editions might get very close when overclocked even to an overclocked 980X and 990X in highly threaded work. Ivy should overclock better than Sandy and Sandy already hit higher cocks than any Nehalem/Westmere derivatives could and Ivy has more IPC.
Ivy seems to be a worthy successor to Sandy.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Considering that SB-E and IB are for different markets, that depends on what you do with your computer. SB-E will not play games any better than SB and IB unless games become more mult-threaded very soon and I doubt that well-threaded games will be the norm at least until IB-E comes out.Remember folks, Ivy also has slightly improved IPC so it's MHz is not quite the same as Sandy MHz and that the Sandy laptop quad core CPUs didn't hit 2.5GHz and 2.7GHz until fairly recently. The 2.7GHz SB i7 EEs for laptops came out only a few months ago or so, not like the other laptop SB CPUs that came out months before it. We will probably see faster i7s for the laptops later on too.Also, Ivy Bridge i7 K editions might get very close when overclocked even to an overclocked 980X and 990X in highly threaded work. Ivy should overclock better than Sandy and Sandy already hit higher cocks than any Nehalem/Westmere derivatives could and Ivy has more IPC.Ivy seems to be a worthy successor to Sandy.[/citation]
I'm looking for 3d gaming, and building a 3d Eyefinity, or 3d Nvidia Surround setup.
So if the IB-E uses the same socket as the SB-E, then should I just go cheep on the SB-E processor(i7-3820), and get the top 2011 Socket mobo for now and upgrade to IB-E when it comes out?
I'm looking for 3d gaming, and building a 3d Eyefinity, or 3d Nvidia Surround setup.
So if the IB-E uses the same socket as the SB-E, then should I just go cheep on the SB-E processor(i7-3820), and get the top 2011 Socket mobo for now and upgrade to IB-E when it comes out?
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
I fear that your target is a little to ambitious.
Most games are only single and lightly threaded so SB-E won't play better than SB and IB-E won't be better than IB unless you are also multi-tasking. 3D and Eyefinity make little difference, the increased load is mostly just on the GPU side. The i7-3820 should suffice just as well as the more expensive models in gaming, especially if it is overclocked somewhat.
For 3D 1080p you need something like a Radeon 7970/6990/GTX 590. If you are doing 3D Eyefinity, well then you would need something like four GTX 580s or three 7970s. Unfortunately, 7970/7950 Crossfire is not working much right now so it's a no-go despite it having marginally better value than GTX 580s.
I have to say, if this is your goal then there isn't much you can do unless you plan on a resolution smaller than 5760x1080.
However, being willing to spend that much, I suggest you wait until IB-E if possible. Unfortunately, that is at least a year away and that is just too long to wait for stuff, unless you are VERY patient.
I'm not sure if eyefinity 3D can be done, within reason. If you really want it, then you might be able to get away with an i7-3820 and only a dual 3D monitor setup and dual GTX 590 6GB/Radeon 69908GB, but with a setup like what you're planning on, I'm afraid I'm reduced to just guessing at what you need, if it's possible.
If you only want a dual monitor setup here, then I can see this being doable and fairly easy... However, I don't think current graphics cards, no matter what you do, are really capable of three 1080p monitors in Eyefinity 5760x1080 at 3D. Remember, a 6990 and GTX 590 and 7970 are about what you should have for 3D 1080p in Metro 2033 and BF3, going dual monitor would need twice as much power, dual 6990 or dual 590 or dual 7970 (not working yet). Going to three 3D 1080p monitors would need something like three 7970s. (not working). You might be able to get away with four GTX 580s, but probably not, at least not without a significant overclock on each card and it is my understanding that it is a lot more difficult to overclock cards when you have more than one.
I can't even guess as to how much VRAM you need, but 3 or 4GB per GPU would probably be a minimum you can work with.
Until Kepler comes out and beats AMD and/or 7970 crossfire support is fixed, there doesn't seem to be a way to have 3D Eyefinity at 5760x1080. If I was wrong when I assumed that this was your goal, then I apologize.
To be honest, you are looking at something that is a little out of my comfort zone fore this stuff, but I think I did the math properly. Does this help?
Most games are only single and lightly threaded so SB-E won't play better than SB and IB-E won't be better than IB unless you are also multi-tasking. 3D and Eyefinity make little difference, the increased load is mostly just on the GPU side. The i7-3820 should suffice just as well as the more expensive models in gaming, especially if it is overclocked somewhat.
For 3D 1080p you need something like a Radeon 7970/6990/GTX 590. If you are doing 3D Eyefinity, well then you would need something like four GTX 580s or three 7970s. Unfortunately, 7970/7950 Crossfire is not working much right now so it's a no-go despite it having marginally better value than GTX 580s.
I have to say, if this is your goal then there isn't much you can do unless you plan on a resolution smaller than 5760x1080.
However, being willing to spend that much, I suggest you wait until IB-E if possible. Unfortunately, that is at least a year away and that is just too long to wait for stuff, unless you are VERY patient.
I'm not sure if eyefinity 3D can be done, within reason. If you really want it, then you might be able to get away with an i7-3820 and only a dual 3D monitor setup and dual GTX 590 6GB/Radeon 69908GB, but with a setup like what you're planning on, I'm afraid I'm reduced to just guessing at what you need, if it's possible.
If you only want a dual monitor setup here, then I can see this being doable and fairly easy... However, I don't think current graphics cards, no matter what you do, are really capable of three 1080p monitors in Eyefinity 5760x1080 at 3D. Remember, a 6990 and GTX 590 and 7970 are about what you should have for 3D 1080p in Metro 2033 and BF3, going dual monitor would need twice as much power, dual 6990 or dual 590 or dual 7970 (not working yet). Going to three 3D 1080p monitors would need something like three 7970s. (not working). You might be able to get away with four GTX 580s, but probably not, at least not without a significant overclock on each card and it is my understanding that it is a lot more difficult to overclock cards when you have more than one.
I can't even guess as to how much VRAM you need, but 3 or 4GB per GPU would probably be a minimum you can work with.
Until Kepler comes out and beats AMD and/or 7970 crossfire support is fixed, there doesn't seem to be a way to have 3D Eyefinity at 5760x1080. If I was wrong when I assumed that this was your goal, then I apologize.
To be honest, you are looking at something that is a little out of my comfort zone fore this stuff, but I think I did the math properly. Does this help?
Yes its dose
and I'm only interested in getting 2 AMD 7990's, or 2 Nvida 690's in my new rig. Not to worried about not having 3d working right out of the box. As I still need to get 3 3D compatible monitors, but I don't mind setting for a solid 2d Eyefinity, or Nvidia surround setup. That compromise would save me a good bit of cash, so its probably the best was to go.
and I'm only interested in getting 2 AMD 7990's, or 2 Nvida 690's in my new rig. Not to worried about not having 3d working right out of the box. As I still need to get 3 3D compatible monitors, but I don't mind setting for a solid 2d Eyefinity, or Nvidia surround setup. That compromise would save me a good bit of cash, so its probably the best was to go.
Is anyone in here a fan of their integrated gpu instead of more Ghz and cores?? I think it's just to eliminated Nvidia in time. Also a cpu and gpu on one die equals a lot of heat.
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 3,078
- 106
- 20,970
[citation][nom]djfv[/nom]It is so silly that only the most expensive CPUs get HD4000.[/citation]Agreed. Especially since the lower-end ones equipped with HD2500 are the ones that will be running afoul of Trinity, not the higher-end parts. The faster chips are better off paired with dedicated graphics anyway! I mean really, the power-saver 3475S gets HD4000, but not any other the models below it, nor the 3550 above it? The only other one on that particular chart that gets HD4000 is the 3570K. Why would you buy one if you're not going to pair it with at least an entry level dGPU? Even a $110 7750 would be leaps and bounds better than the best integrated GPUs while still being VERY power efficient (especially at idle).
On the other hand, these chips are going to be great in terms of performance and power efficiency, on the CPU side. Even more so than Sandy Bridge, which was already a very good and capable architecture. It just annoys me that they STILL didn't take the GPU very seriously, even after all that talk. I was hoping for more, I think it will be increasingly important especially for laptops/ultrathins (I hate how Intel decided only they should be allowed to use "Ultrabook" so I hate using that term).
On the other hand, these chips are going to be great in terms of performance and power efficiency, on the CPU side. Even more so than Sandy Bridge, which was already a very good and capable architecture. It just annoys me that they STILL didn't take the GPU very seriously, even after all that talk. I was hoping for more, I think it will be increasingly important especially for laptops/ultrathins (I hate how Intel decided only they should be allowed to use "Ultrabook" so I hate using that term).
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]luc vr[/nom]Is anyone in here a fan of their integrated gpu instead of more Ghz and cores?? I think it's just to eliminated Nvidia in time. Also a cpu and gpu on one die equals a lot of heat.[/citation]
Intel's IGPs are probably the most energy efficient GPUs ever. I'm only assuming this based on other factors, but seriously. They are fairly and weak and they are a part of the most energy efficient processors available for the desktop. I don't think that Intel would have them if they added significant amounts of power usage and heat.
Also, if you're not using it, then it isn't contributing much, if at all, to the power usage and heat generation of the chips anyway. Remember, these are undoubtedly also 22nm 3D transistors in the IGPs of IB too, making them built on the most energy efficient process by a company currently renowned for the most efficient processors and they are low end GPUs too. The HD 2500 is probably smaller, yet faster than HD 3000. HD 4000 only has 30% more EUs than HD 3000, it;s 60% performance boost is probably simply because of the die shrink and other improvements, etc.
[citation][nom]noobalert[/nom]Yes its doseand I'm only interested in getting 2 AMD 7990's, or 2 Nvida 690's in my new rig. Not to worried about not having 3d working right out of the box. As I still need to get 3 3D compatible monitors, but I don't mind setting for a solid 2d Eyefinity, or Nvidia surround setup. That compromise would save me a good bit of cash, so its probably the best was to go.[/citation]
Glad to help. With your targeted graphics performance, I daresay that you could do quad 1080p 3D or dual 2560x1440 in 3D without problems, unless you run out of graphics RAM. In which case, I think that SAPPHIRE is making a 12GB 7990 and 6GB 7970s and if you can afford that then you shouldn't have memory problems for a long time.
Intel's IGPs are probably the most energy efficient GPUs ever. I'm only assuming this based on other factors, but seriously. They are fairly and weak and they are a part of the most energy efficient processors available for the desktop. I don't think that Intel would have them if they added significant amounts of power usage and heat.
Also, if you're not using it, then it isn't contributing much, if at all, to the power usage and heat generation of the chips anyway. Remember, these are undoubtedly also 22nm 3D transistors in the IGPs of IB too, making them built on the most energy efficient process by a company currently renowned for the most efficient processors and they are low end GPUs too. The HD 2500 is probably smaller, yet faster than HD 3000. HD 4000 only has 30% more EUs than HD 3000, it;s 60% performance boost is probably simply because of the die shrink and other improvements, etc.
[citation][nom]noobalert[/nom]Yes its doseand I'm only interested in getting 2 AMD 7990's, or 2 Nvida 690's in my new rig. Not to worried about not having 3d working right out of the box. As I still need to get 3 3D compatible monitors, but I don't mind setting for a solid 2d Eyefinity, or Nvidia surround setup. That compromise would save me a good bit of cash, so its probably the best was to go.[/citation]
Glad to help. With your targeted graphics performance, I daresay that you could do quad 1080p 3D or dual 2560x1440 in 3D without problems, unless you run out of graphics RAM. In which case, I think that SAPPHIRE is making a 12GB 7990 and 6GB 7970s and if you can afford that then you shouldn't have memory problems for a long time.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
SB-E has an 8 core die, but it is still limited to six cores on the desktop side and I don't think that Intel will change this unless they make a new stepping that is more power efficient. Intel claims that in order for all eight cores to be used on the SB-E CPUs, it would have a 150w TDP. It would also mean that the 8 core LGA 2011 Xeons wouldn't have more cores than the desktop LGA 2011 processors, I'm not sure if Intel wants this to happen. I think that they don't want it or we would have probably seen some 8 core SB-Es. Intel seems to want to continue the six core tradition for their top consumer processors. With IB's reduced power usage, we might see 8 core IB-E processors, but I'm doubtful.
Also, yay another spam post. Evidently, someone wants us to go to avufo . info/g. gif because all of these posts have the same URL.
Also, yay another spam post. Evidently, someone wants us to go to avufo . info/g. gif because all of these posts have the same URL.
I think we need to remember that Intel is a company about making money. They just made 2 major changes in their manufacturing processes (22nm stepping from 32nm stepping and tri-gate transisters from planar transistors). I'm willing to assume their production efficiency is low. Clock speeds probably haven't increased much because that would further decrease production efficiency.
Secondly, Intel is more influenced by the requests of their bigger OEMs concerns about processor features than the needs of the much smaller enthusiast community (more than half of which probably won't even buy an Ivy Bridge chip). Also, they have simplified their manufacturing process by using only 4 processor design templates. This probably saves them a lot of money. Thus, every 4/8 core chip received the 4000 series IGP.
IMHO, In 9 months or so, a clock increase will be released. By then, the initial deadline for Haswell's release will be around the corner (will likely be delayed), and most people that pay attention to these things won't buy the updated IB chips. When Haswell is released in 2013, it will offer a bunch of new features and improvements, 802.11ac will be out of draft stage, SSD's will be affordable to the budget consumer, and Windows 8 will have most of it's initial flaws fixed. If you can wait about 18-months, that will be the best time to buy a new PC. The biggest benefit of Ivy Bridge seems to go to laptop consumers that can't wait for Haswell, and need the improved power efficiency.
Secondly, Intel is more influenced by the requests of their bigger OEMs concerns about processor features than the needs of the much smaller enthusiast community (more than half of which probably won't even buy an Ivy Bridge chip). Also, they have simplified their manufacturing process by using only 4 processor design templates. This probably saves them a lot of money. Thus, every 4/8 core chip received the 4000 series IGP.
IMHO, In 9 months or so, a clock increase will be released. By then, the initial deadline for Haswell's release will be around the corner (will likely be delayed), and most people that pay attention to these things won't buy the updated IB chips. When Haswell is released in 2013, it will offer a bunch of new features and improvements, 802.11ac will be out of draft stage, SSD's will be affordable to the budget consumer, and Windows 8 will have most of it's initial flaws fixed. If you can wait about 18-months, that will be the best time to buy a new PC. The biggest benefit of Ivy Bridge seems to go to laptop consumers that can't wait for Haswell, and need the improved power efficiency.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]__-_-_-__[/nom]no word on thunderbolt...[/citation]
There has been plenty of word on thunderbolt. Many board makers are planning on integrating it into motherboards. The problem is it is expensive to have so it may increase the price of boards that support it significantly. We haven't heard a whole lot about it very recently because we already have confirmation of it being an optional add on for the board makers. Gigabyte, MSI, Asus, etc. already are working on the boards and have some with Thunderbolt in the works.
There has been plenty of word on thunderbolt. Many board makers are planning on integrating it into motherboards. The problem is it is expensive to have so it may increase the price of boards that support it significantly. We haven't heard a whole lot about it very recently because we already have confirmation of it being an optional add on for the board makers. Gigabyte, MSI, Asus, etc. already are working on the boards and have some with Thunderbolt in the works.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
I would say that it's worth waiting. Even if Ivy isn't what you're looking for, Sandy will be cheaper after Ivy has been released. Ivy will be somewhat faster and use a lot less electricity. If you spend the same amount of money on an Ivy as you do on a Sandy, you will save more money in the long run from the reduced electricity bill, depending on how much you use it. By that time you might also have a little more money, maybe get a better system while your at it because of that.
Definitely worth the wait. Other tech will also be coming out (more GCN Radeon cards and Nvidia Kepler), so there may be even more incentive to wait than to buy now than just what Ivy will offer. GCN and Kepler offer much more energy efficiency, saving you even more money versus a current video card.
Definitely worth the wait. Other tech will also be coming out (more GCN Radeon cards and Nvidia Kepler), so there may be even more incentive to wait than to buy now than just what Ivy will offer. GCN and Kepler offer much more energy efficiency, saving you even more money versus a current video card.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Tried moving SSD from old PC to new one, now it won't boot from either
- Started by scyer327
- Replies: 9
-
Question why my pc dont have sound after install new Nvidia GPU Card?
- Started by sudsaviour
- Replies: 3
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 15
-
Latest posts
-
Question User RX 580 8gb red devil powercolor, asking original BIOS- Latest: PizzaInGame
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram