Intel to Sell Ivy Bridge Late in Q4 2011

[alidan]

can everyone remember that windows 7 was built with intel hyperthreading in mind and is not currently working correctly with amds bulldozer

with a service pack (if its possible) or windows 8, some of the more craptastic benchmarks with bulldozer could/should be fixed, with only the single threaded applications takeing a hit, and honestly, we had multicore for at least 6 years now, and i believe the first commercial consumer one being an amd (i may be wrong, and probably wrong by i believe 4 years) there is no reason for any application to be single core anymore. seeing as almost EVERYTHING benefits from multi cpu.

in the multi cpu department, bulldozer can surpass the more expensive i7 and jut not the less expensive i5.

now imagine if windows was written to take advantage of amds multithreading solution.

im waiting on win 8 and on the first year revise before i condemn amd.

all that said, we are literally talking about seconds of difference in speed, not minutes.

 

[ltdementhial]

I got a Phenom II x3 720 BE...i was thinkin about buy a Motherboard (Msi 970-G45 or Asus M5A97) and 6 Gb or Ram...unlock the 4º core (it is but this old mobo (gigabyte 760g) has a bug in the Temp and it marks 36º when stock 38 when OC to 3.4 (3.6 can be done with another cooler) and a Crazy 61º @ X4 3.4... im a gamer thus i not play full HD (1368x768 is mi max)the pc is for gaming/encoding only. so im think due to the BD deception and since i want a AM3(+ ?) Mobo for an 3-6month cpu-gpu upgrade i see no point...so what should i do? upgrade only mobo and ram and unlock/overclock cpu (no bad core its a true quad with one turned off) upgrade Cpu to an X4 965-980 (x6 its too much for me just a waste) or wait for IB and buy one or an "cheaper i3-i5?

 

[julianbautista87]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Apple is a hardware monopoly? LOL, what a joke! They don't make ANY hardware themselves. Also, you can run Mac OS on many non-Macs - it's called a Hackintosh.To answer you and the comment above:Intel WILL have to make IB competitive. Why? Sandy Bridge, of course! So far i5-2500K is tearing every game apart once paired with a good GPU. Unless Ivy Bridge will offer significant improvement for money, people will stay on or buy SB.[/citation]

First of all: Hackintosh is illegal. just google "Psystar" and find it for yourself.

Second: Apple has a little hardware monopoly, and yes they don't create it, they just resell it.

Third: You must be an idiot if you think that they have to compete against theirselves...

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

First of all: Hackintosh is illegal. just google "Psystar" and find it for yourself.

Second: Apple has a little hardware monopoly, and yes they don't create it, they just resell it.

Third: You must be an idiot if you think that they have to compete against theirselves...

First: no one gives a $h!t what you do with your own computer. Psystar got pwnd because they did it on a business scale! You can legally buy Mac OS and then do whatever the hell you want with it, and if you will obey the [:amk-aka-phantom:1] license agreement [:amk-aka-phantom:1] in this case, you are an idiot.

Second: Their products are not unique, so it's not a monopoly, strictly speaking. If, for example, AMD would suddenly close down and Intel would be the only one producing x86 CPUs, THAT would be a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly; there're other OSs, laptops, smartphones and tablets on the market.

Third: yes, Intel WILL have to compete against themselves. Who will upgrade to Ivy Bridge or choose it over Sandy Bridge for their new build if it will be expensive and not worth the performance gain? Answer that!

 

[baracubra]

^^ Lol that was a mouthful

 

[julianbautista87]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]First: no one gives a $h!t what you do with your own computer. Psystar got pwnd because they did it on a business scale! You can legally buy Mac OS and then do whatever the hell you want with it, and if you will obey the license agreement in this case, you are an idiot.Second: Their products are not unique, so it's not a monopoly, strictly speaking. If, for example, AMD would suddenly close down and Intel would be the only one producing x86 CPUs, THAT would be a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly; there're other OSs, laptops, smartphones and tablets on the market.Third: yes, Intel WILL have to compete against themselves. Who will upgrade to Ivy Bridge or choose it over Sandy Bridge for their new build if it will be expensive and not worth the performance gain? Answer that![/citation]


when you "buy" a piece of software, or music, or a book, you can't do whatever the fuck you want. you just can't. that's why there are EULAs. you don't own it, you just bought the right to use it for yourself. Following the laws is not being an idiot.

The market of MACs is a monopoly, because you can't legally use mac os on anything but a mac computer. and the mac computers are sold exclusively by apple. So, colleges, schools, enterprises, factories, etc.. can't use mac os without buying macs (only to apple) because even when its too hard for apple to sue every single user who violates the EULA, its easier to sue a college or a enterprise for doing it. And apple sued a canada school for less that that (google it)

Intel don't have to compete against itself because Intel controls the price of the Sandy bridge too!!!

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

when you "buy" a piece of software, or music, or a book, you can't do whatever the *** you want. you just can't. that's why there are EULAs. you don't own it, you just bought the right to use it for yourself. Following the laws is not being an idiot.

The market of MACs is a monopoly, because you can't legally use mac os on anything but a mac computer. and the mac computers are sold exclusively by apple. So, colleges, schools, enterprises, factories, etc.. can't use mac os without buying macs (only to apple) because even when its too hard for apple to sue every single user who violates the EULA, its easier to sue a college or a enterprise for doing it. And apple sued a canada school for less that that (google it)

Intel don't have to compete against itself because Intel controls the price of the Sandy bridge too!!!

Dude, that's BS. I can and will do whatever I want with it. If I'd want to do Hackintosh, I would do it. Try and sue me - you will never find any evidence I did so. And I don't give a crap about EULAs, I paid money, it's my PC and I control it. I am NOT basing my computing experience over EULAs and their BS. I can understand fighting software piracy or something, but forbidding Hackintosh is just another Apple's stunt and I frankly don't care about how legal or illegal is it; people do it, so please don't say it's "impossible".

Stop bringing up schools and businesses as an example; I already said that you will only get in trouble if you're doing Hackintosh on an enterprise scale.

So, you're saying that Intel will... what? SUDDENLY increase the prices for Sandy Bridge? You need a cold shower. That's not how hardware market works. You don't increase prices just because you can. Increase Sandy Bridge prices, and everyone will happily jump on Bulldozer and Phenom II.

 

[ghnader hsmithot]

Where is my Extreme edition of Ivy bridge??????

 

[ben850]

[citation][nom]ltdementhial[/nom]I got a Phenom II x3 720 BE...i was thinkin about buy a Motherboard (Msi 970-G45 or Asus M5A97) and 6 Gb or Ram...unlock the 4º core (it is but this old mobo (gigabyte 760g) has a bug in the Temp and it marks 36º when stock 38 when OC to 3.4 (3.6 can be done with another cooler) and a Crazy 61º @ X4 3.4... im a gamer thus i not play full HD (1368x768 is mi max)the pc is for gaming/encoding only. so im think due to the BD deception and since i want a AM3(+ ?) Mobo for an 3-6month cpu-gpu upgrade i see no point...so what should i do? upgrade only mobo and ram and unlock/overclock cpu (no bad core its a true quad with one turned off) upgrade Cpu to an X4 965-980 (x6 its too much for me just a waste) or wait for IB and buy one or an "cheaper i3-i5?[/citation]

Throwing a Phenom II x4 980 in there would be huge upgrade. Also considering the fact it's a Black Edition, you can overclock it to 4ghz+ with ease.

 

[oxxfatelostxxo]

Im running a Core2 Duo, with a gtx570, and ive yet to play any game that i cant run at max. 1900x1200 resolution.

New Cpu's are nice, but they far exceed thier usefullness in gaming.

 

[de5_Roy]

ivy bridge's main playing field would be the new ultrabooks that intel has been pitching. amd might have trinity but i wonder how the bd 'core' will perform with a radeon gpu(llano did that perfectly with a phenom cpu).
on a portable you don't get upgradability and have to use the stuff you bought and you have to pay more compared to desktop parts.
ivb will up performance on macs too. macbook air and ultrabooks will compete with each other(also with tablets, arm etc).
i doubt sb prices will drop after ivb comes out. iirc core i3 prices didn't change much after llano came out instead intel released bunch of (overpriced)pentiums, celerons and more core i3s with minor speed bump.

 

[acadia11]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]can everyone remember that windows 7 was built with intel hyperthreading in mind and is not currently working correctly with amds bulldozerwith a service pack (if its possible) or windows 8, some of the more craptastic benchmarks with bulldozer could/should be fixed, with only the single threaded applications takeing a hit, and honestly, we had multicore for at least 6 years now, and i believe the first commercial consumer one being an amd (i may be wrong, and probably wrong by i believe 4 years) there is no reason for any application to be single core anymore. seeing as almost EVERYTHING benefits from multi cpu.in the multi cpu department, bulldozer can surpass the more expensive i7 and jut not the less expensive i5. now imagine if windows was written to take advantage of amds multithreading solution.im waiting on win 8 and on the first year revise before i condemn amd. all that said, we are literally talking about seconds of difference in speed, not minutes.[/citation]


Stop fighting it, BullDozer simply sucks, and no amount of software optimization is going to make up the difference. It's a dumb design. Overbloated chip. I mean seriously who needed more INT power out of a CPU, when virtually all the stuff that needs high power this day relies on teh GPU or the FPU of your CPU , encoding, gaming, 3d rendering ...etc ... great with more int units excel will open up faster. Woefully under powered FPU performance.

 

[silverblue]

We'll see if the premise behind Bulldozer is "dumb" when and if the following happen:

1) Trinity appears with its Piledriver cores which noticeably improve over Bulldozer;
2) Intel suddenly decides to do something similar architecturally.

Bulldozer is a good idea executed wrong. Software might not fix it, but a revision or two might just iron things out. In any case, if integer performance wasn't necessary, Intel wouldn't have made SB the integer monster that it is.

 

[jkflipflop98]

[citation][nom]julianbautista87[/nom]yep, we all know what monopolies do to the market. Just look at microsoft, they don't have competition on the software for the PC market, and the win7 retail costs 200 dollars. apple *could* compete with its mac os x, but they don't want to, because they run a monopoly too, the hardware monopoly. Apple has the mac monopoly, and if you want to run mac os x, you have to buy a mac, which is nothing but an overpriced resold computer. So just imagine 10 years from now, with Intel as the only processor seller, why would they buy their processors cheap? They would rise their prices to get the best profit-per-unit-sold/numbers-of-units-sold, just like microsoft and apple do.[/citation]

You don't have a clue as to what the word "monopoly" actually means.

 

[acadia11]

[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]We'll see if the premise behind Bulldozer is "dumb" when and if the following happen:1) Trinity appears with its Piledriver cores which noticeably improve over Bulldozer;2) Intel suddenly decides to do something similar architecturally.Bulldozer is a good idea executed wrong. Software might not fix it, but a revision or two might just iron things out. In any case, if integer performance wasn't necessary, Intel wouldn't have made SB the integer monster that it is.[/citation]

I did not say INT performance is not important. I said the FPU performance of Bulldozer sucks axx. SB has strong INT and FPU performance having more FPU Units than bulldozer.

The idea is executed wrong. Therea re so many things wrong with AMD right now. Bheind on TDP. Behind on transistor size. Behind on product release cycle. They are just behind. When they bought Dec Alpha, they had somethign there. Then they ....ked it up. I hope they don't ruin ATI as well.

The bottom line AMD management should just give up. They should have let DEC take them over and let ATI take over their GPU ambitions because clearly they can't get isht righ themselves.

 

[admir00]

Darn it, was hoping to see them out before 2012, (cuz the worlds gonna end)

 

[makaveli316]

My Core 2 Duo E6400 can't wait

 

[rooket]

[citation][nom]makaveli316[/nom]My Core 2 Duo E6400 can't wait[/citation]

lol ya, I'm running core2 and am going to upgrade to ivy bridge as well. plus 600 series nvidia card which will be coming out at about the same time.


also above, I think all these mac people are going to win the darwin award for sure. WHO CARES THIS IS NOT A MAC THREAD GO HOME hahaha
seriously. whenever I chime in saying a mac is just a pc with a different shell, people start giving me negative. BUT IT IS and you will see ivy bridge inside mac products too. don't believe me? well, that isn't my problem but it is going to occur. also EULA > whatever BS you numbskulls are posting above. end of story. you can also install whatever o/s u want on a mac thus there is no monopoly legally.

 

[cookoy]

why don't they just say, OEM manufacturers/distributors will get IB chips on xxx date and retailers on yyy date?

 

[cats_Paw]

Well, after my q6600 lets see how good this Ivy thingy is going to be .

 

[molo9000]

[citation][nom]julianbautista87[/nom]Apple has the mac monopoly, and if you want to run mac os x, you have to buy a mac, which is nothing but an overpriced resold computer.[/citation]

Calling Apple's 5%-of-the-PC-market niche a monopoly is pretty far fetched.
There is a minority of users, mostly professionals, who require Mac OS for some reason or another, but the vast majority of Mac users can choose freely between Mac and Windows.

The switching barriers from Windows to Mac are 10 times bigger.

 

[silverblue]

acadia11:

No, but you did infer that integer performance wasn't as important as floating point performance. Perhaps it's not, but AMD's idea was that such calculations would be offloaded to a discrete card anyway. Rightly or wrongly, they've done it. In any case, having the ability to process either 8 128-bit or 4 256-bit FP instructions per clock doesn't make Bulldozer a slouch, especially compared to Stars (theoretically, the FX-8150 should outpace the 1100T by a good 30-40% in FP). In addition, as more and more software uses AVX, XOP, FMA etc., Bulldozer will compete better than it is doing currently.

The TDP issue is complicated... the module design is such that if one core is active, so is the module, as AMD opted for a per-module strategy on power usage. At this time, has anybody figured out the power usage by disabling every even integer core; does it make a pronounced difference? If so, AMD could/should make Turbo Core even more granular; instead of downclocking integer cores dynamically, they could shut them off. However, 16MB of cache can't be a big help. Magny-Cours has a similar number of transistors with its 19MB of cache (Zambezi is just much more complex) but it's clocked far lower. In my mind, having so much cache on an AMD CPU isn't too helpful, as we saw from the Athlon II series; it's the speed of said cache that matters more. That's probably one of many reasons why it's rumoured that AMD will drop the L3 cache for Piledriver, at least as far as Trinity is involved. Having said that, in circumstances where cache is paramount, Bulldozer would make more sense, albeit only really for servers. If only they'd gone for less L3 cache and clocked it much higher, perhaps we'd be seeing benefits on the desktop, who knows? Certainly not me. Intel caching is different as they use inclusive caches which would necessitate having more cache, and they're ahead on cache technology anyway so AMD could do with some catching up here. In any case, Interlagos would have 32MB of cache (not including L1) - there has to be situations where this would be of tremendous benefit.

I did read that Bulldozer snoops RAM at the same time as cache just in case something's not there, which may be making the best of a bad situation...?

Transistor size? AMD have been there, done that, nine years ago, and at 10nm:

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Release_42454.aspx

I'm desperate to see Johan's Interlagos review on Anandtech (plus the Toms equivalent, of course) to see how it performs in far more ideal scenarios.

 

[mihaimm]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Who will upgrade to Ivy Bridge or choose it over Sandy Bridge for their new build if it will be expensive and not worth the performance gain? Answer that![/citation]
Remember the glory days of Pentium III? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_III_microprocessors
Check the introduction prices on those bad boys... And tell me... why do you think that was?
Could it be that Intel had NO serious competition that the market was aware of? Or was it the FUD on any seriously competing product? Or maybe the abuse of monopolistic position to 'convince' manufacturers to exclusively use Intel CPUs...?

Let me put things into perspective if you still don't get it... Let's say Ivy is 3x faster than Sandy. This would leave AMD in the dust. They would struggle to compete but will eventually would go the Via way (become insignificant in the market). At that point Intel will release a new revolutionary architecture 3x faster than Ivy, discontinue Ivy, and sell only top of the line CPUs for 1000+. Nobody will worry... "that's a top CPU, I don't need that and Ivy is still very good". But, as stocks get emptied, you will be surprised to see the not so top of the line CPUs coming out considerably more expensive than the old Ivy. And as stocks get empty, even prices on Ivy start to climb... not much... just a bit. And by popular demand, Intel starts making Ivy again, on a new process, but... just a bit more expensive (to account for the lower TDP).

That's how Intel gets to sell 2 (and only 2) lines of CPUs, marginally improving each of them, perhaps pursuing the tick-tock but at a much lower pace, and offering us 1k$+ CPUs.

Who's the winner? You of course, because you no longer have those crappy AMD CPUs selling for peanuts... and now everybody agrees with you on the forums: Intel CPUs are the best.

 

[UnSignedC0d3]

First: no one gives a $h!t what you do with your own computer. Psystar got pwnd because they did it on a business scale! You can legally buy Mac OS and then do whatever the hell you want with it, and if you will obey the license agreement in this case, you are an idiot.

Second: Their products are not unique, so it's not a monopoly, strictly speaking. If, for example, AMD would suddenly close down and Intel would be the only one producing x86 CPUs, THAT would be a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly; there're other OSs, laptops, smartphones and tablets on the market.

Third: yes, Intel WILL have to compete against themselves. Who will upgrade to Ivy Bridge or choose it over Sandy Bridge for their new build if it will be expensive and not worth the performance gain? Answer that!

Couldn't have replied better.

 

[thomaseron]

Imbecil! If AMD goes down, you won't afford to buy an intel processor.

[citation][nom]phatbuddha79[/nom]*rubs hands* can't wait especially after the fail that was BD!![/citation]