Intel to Sell Ivy Bridge Late in Q4 2011

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860


Bullshit. Intel does that, they'll get pwnd by ARM as consumer will shift to tablets and smartphones to check FB and e-mail. Intel learned their lesson well. We're NOT gonna see overpriced BS from them any time soon.
 

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860


If you're gonna insult people, at least make sure you spell your insults properly.

AMD is NOT going down, their GPUs are great, they've got the whole new game with their APU toys (until Intel decides to deal with this threat) and Bulldozer will find its place... but so far, they failed to deliver on the gaming front with their CPUs, and all the AMD fans who waited for Bulldozer for so long are pretty pissed right now. I'm sure half of them bought a 2500K already :)

If AMD goes down, Intel will be a monopoly. Now, the US law is pretty stupid - so, Intel would do NOTHING wrong (hey, it's AMD's screwup if they go out of business!) but it would still count as breaking the law! Alright, so that's not happening. Suppose they WOULD be a monopoly and that would be allowed? They'll have to struggle against ARM and convince a consumer that it's worth buying their CPUs and not ARM. Gamers will shift to consoles if the CPUs will cost a lot (but only AFTER their Sandy Bridge ran dry!) and Intel will have no customers left.

So stop spreading BS and calm down. Intel doesn't care much for AMD. I can't even find a single AMD pre-built on a local market.
 

thomaseron

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2007
154
0
18,680



Ok, thanks for the correction on spelling.
I'm not from the US or GB, so there might be some errors along the way.
(but not alot of them. )

If you look at Dell, (you know, the intel fanboys?) the do not have a single system
with an AMD CPU or APU. I'm pretty sure that's not AMDs fault.
Yes, the FX was not what anyone (but intel) hoped for and that is sad.
 

Specter0420

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2010
111
28
18,710
[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]Still waiting for a reason to upgrade from my 2 and a half year old X58 system lol.When it comes to gaming, there still isn't anything out that even comes close to testing a 3.6 - 3.8ghz or higher OCed 1366 chip. And I got mine Oced at 4.3ghz lol.[/citation] I was going to ask how my i7 920 (3.9 Ghz), 6 gigs ddr3 1600 would hold up to the non-oc'ed flagship IB. I don't care alot about power consumption. Any guesses?
 

julianbautista87

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2010
153
0
18,690
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]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.[/citation]


Come on, man, you are a citizen, you have to follow the law. But I think it's worthless trying to say that, most people do whatever they want.

And about the price increase... I thought we were talking about the hypotetical case that AMD didn't exist.
 

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860


LOL :lol: Stuff your "law" BS somewhere far... it's juvenile. You're right: most people do what they want, and so do I.

I DID mention that hypothetical case:

Suppose they WOULD be a monopoly and that would be allowed? They'll have to struggle against ARM and convince a consumer that it's worth buying their CPUs and not ARM. Gamers will shift to consoles if the CPUs will cost a lot (but only AFTER their Sandy Bridge ran dry!) and Intel will have no customers left.
 

ngoy

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2009
139
2
18,710
[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 bulldozer"
[/citation]

Uh, you don't design a processor, take 4 years, and NOT test it on software you have had access to since alpha stage. What you are saying is that through some magical patch, Windows 7 or 8 is going to all of a sudden make Bullcrapdozer work better than Sandy Bridge.

IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. Stop being an AMD apologist. Bulldozer is barely faster than processors released TWO YEARS AGO, on the 45nm process, and has TWICE AS MANY CORES, and TWICE AS MUCH CACHE. If they can't get it run what is out right now any faster, how the hell are they supposed to get stuff that isn't even written yet to work?

There has not been anything designed in the last 10 years with a "wait and see if stuff gets written for it" attitude. You line up developers and partners DURING the development process to ensure you have a market for what you are trying to sell and if you are selling into an EXISTING market, you damn well better make sure your crap is better than what is already out there.

Bulldozer release=full of fail. Just like the stupid hardware heaven review. That article was a bunch of one sided, oh gee this is teh awesom3 crap, and at the end of the article actually recommends the 8150 for gaming and overclocking. And I think the only website out of the 10 reviews of bulldozer that I read to do so.

If I was an AMD fan, I would just get your crying over with. If I was an AMD stockholder, I'd be royally pissed. It's just an absolute architecture fail, and they had 2 EXTRA YEARS to come up with something better after they saw the performance from Nehalem.
 

bildo123

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2007
1,599
0
19,810
I practically smashed on this link since I JUST bought a sandbridge CPU. Glad to find it still won't be available until Spring; at least I get a 6 month breather. I have a feeling that sandybridge prices won't be affected that much seeing as Intel isn't exactly struggling for competition.
 

mihaimm

Distinguished
Apr 6, 2009
97
0
18,630
About the law regarding hackintoshes... you're not breaking the law. You are breaking your license agreement with Apple if you buy OSX and install it on non-Apple hardware. As much as Apple would like you to believe that, a license agreement is not the law.

About not seeing overpriced stuff from Intel... LMAO. i3-2130 with a die size of 150mm² is 150$. Phenom II X6 1055T with a die size of 346mm² is 150$. NewEgg prices...

No customers left for Intel because gamers would shift to ARMs? I dream of that day... but it will never come...
 

silverblue

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2009
1,199
4
19,285
ngoy:

That's all well and good, however the HH review used a different setup to most of the others which opted for the AMD-supplied ASUS CHV Formula, and a GTX580. If someone out there owned the same setup as HH, they could at least verify the results (I think Toms and a few other sites are doing a motherboard roundup soon which should be interesting). I am very interested, personally, on how F1 2011 performs far better on a 6950 than a 580 even when using AA and AF, and hopefully we'll have those answers soon.

AMD stockholders will be less worried about desktop performance than how it does on servers, the very platform it was designed for, and AMD's bread and butter. Had AMD not slapped the FX moniker on Zambezi, there'd be far less wailing and gnashing of teeth over its relative lack of performance, though arguably far less interest in the product as a whole. I still believe AMD should've left the high-end desktop market alone for a bit longer and concentrate on Interlagos and Valencia, grow their server market share and give Intel something to think about, but there's less chance of that now with reduced server inventory.
 
G

Guest

Guest
It will probably cost 500+ and besides spring 2012 is still far away if it will be worth the price we will see in benchmarks.
 

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860


Not to ARM, I said to consoles.

i3-2100 kicked Phenom II X6's ass in some games, I'd say it's a good value for money ($125) and 2130 is just a small improvement, not worth it.
 

ngoy

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2009
139
2
18,710
[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]....AMD stockholders will be less worried about desktop performance than how it does on servers, the very platform it was designed for, and AMD's bread and butter. Had AMD not slapped the FX moniker on Zambezi, there'd be far less wailing and gnashing of teeth over its relative lack of performance, though arguably far less interest in the product as a whole. I still believe AMD should've left the high-end desktop market alone for a bit longer and concentrate on Interlagos and Valencia, grow their server market share and give Intel something to think about, but there's less chance of that now with reduced server inventory.[/citation]

I have to disagree about what stockholders regard as important vs what market perception is of the product they just released. I sit above 1400 AMD HP Servers right now. The servers (which are technically leased to the client) are on a 5 year refresh schedule. So we change out servers (assuming that the application is still relevant) at that time. Depending on the application, many of these refreshes are being pushed into VM's for 1) disaster/failover recovery 2) higher cpu utilization 3) lower overall power cost. So while we may be purchasing more servers now for a virtual/cloud environment, eventually it is going to reach a saturation point where if we want more servers for an application, we just load some generic cloud backend onto the box and plug it into the network. The guiding purchase factor at that point in time will be performace per watt. Right now we buy AMD because it is cheap. The problem is that datacenters are limited by available power, available redundant power, and space/cooling. Offering a server processor that is neither faster than the competitions or uses less energy is a fail. AMD investors should be worried about this: http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/benchmarks/new.html

There is ONE xx5 box listed (Intel model servers end in 0, AMD with 5). Servers are on 24x7. The initial capital (CPU) cost of a server is far outweighed by peripherals, software, and total cost of ownership (including power). Eventually, we are not going to be buying as many systems. So the server market is going to slow down.

The economy in the US kind of sucks. So retail sales are so-so. Consumers buy stuff because they WANT to, businesses buy stuff because they HAVE to. So this datacenter (which is only one of around nine) I'm sitting at supports a corporation with, 110000 INTEL based desktops and laptops. They are changed out every 3 to 4 years. THAT is the market they are shooting for, and if not, should be. Their processor performance should reflect that "hey, it works great on your servers, so it will be great on your desktop." Unfortunately that is not the case. And I can't see that their desktop architecture is going to be that much different, nor do I see some magic optimizations software-wise that is going to hand Intel anything but more victory.

All we can do is wait and see, but I'm not holding my breath. When Ivy Bridge comes out, Intel will be almost 3 years ahead of AMD. I can't hold my breath that long.
 

sweatlaserxp

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2003
965
0
18,980
[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]

Get over it, Bulldozer sucks and no patch or new OS is going to make up for the chasm that separates its performance from Intel's
 

noblerabbit

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2010
312
0
18,780
Thank you AMD, for singlehandedly killing the competitive CPU segment, with your BULL(crap)DOZER, for the next 18 months, now we will have to spend $1,000 on all of Intels upcoming CPU's.

 

ngoy

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2009
139
2
18,710
I'm glad there is some AMD Failfanboi out downrating non amd positive posts. Whoever you are, why don't you read the responses and try to comprehend them. Moron.
 

jokertime1

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2011
7
0
18,510
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Just put together my first Intel build after being with AMD for many years. Bulldozer is a disappointment so I had to go for pure speed and future proof system. This is good news since my Z68 Gen3 motherboard is Ivy Bridge ready as well as PCI EX 3.0 Plus a BF3 ready PC was also a priority. A AMD convert and happy to say so.[/citation]
what mobo do you have
 

josejones

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2010
901
0
18,990
Well crapola,

I was hoping Ivy Bridge would come out sooner than spring 2012. I may not be able to wait that long. My PC was built in 2004 and it's on its last leg ... not sure it will make to spring.

Maybe I'll need to get a good motherboard with USB 3 and PCIe 3 and a decent used Intel CPU until Ivy is available?
 

josejones

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2010
901
0
18,990
On the other hand, if Ivy Bridge is going to be $500+ just for the CPU then, I probably won't be able to do it. It's just out of my budget. That makes my choice much easier though ... I'll have to go with AMD.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]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.[/citation]

well, bulldozer in a few real world benchmarks outperformed a higher cost intel, if windows 7 wasn't specifically made for hyper threading, i wonder how much slower things would be on the intel side. what im saying is that i want to wait on windows 8 to be build with bulldozer in mind, and wait till the first bulldozer revision that is promising 15% more performance. because honestly, i'm assuming when windows is programmed right, that will be about a 5-10% increase, and a year 1 15%, that would easily put it ahead of the i5 in most benchmarks. by that time, its ivy bridge, but i have little doubt that a die shrink will be payed for by the consumers.

[citation][nom]ngoy[/nom]Uh, you don't design a processor, take 4 years, and NOT test it on software you have had access to since alpha stage. What you are saying is that through some magical patch, Windows 7 or 8 is going to all of a sudden make Bullcrapdozer work better than Sandy Bridge. IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. Stop being an AMD apologist. Bulldozer is barely faster than processors released TWO YEARS AGO, on the 45nm process, and has TWICE AS MANY CORES, and TWICE AS MUCH CACHE. If they can't get it run what is out right now any faster, how the hell are they supposed to get stuff that isn't even written yet to work?There has not been anything designed in the last 10 years with a "wait and see if stuff gets written for it" attitude. You line up developers and partners DURING the development process to ensure you have a market for what you are trying to sell and if you are selling into an EXISTING market, you damn well better make sure your crap is better than what is already out there.Bulldozer release=full of fail. Just like the stupid hardware heaven review. That article was a bunch of one sided, oh gee this is teh awesom3 crap, and at the end of the article actually recommends the 8150 for gaming and overclocking. And I think the only website out of the 10 reviews of bulldozer that I read to do so.If I was an AMD fan, I would just get your crying over with. If I was an AMD stockholder, I'd be royally pissed. It's just an absolute architecture fail, and they had 2 EXTRA YEARS to come up with something better after they saw the performance from Nehalem.[/citation]

and they did, granted at the cost of the single core only programs, most of what put bulldozer dead last seamed to be windows failing royally.

 

cybersans

Distinguished
Dec 28, 2009
74
0
18,630
OFF TOPIC: ...and like i said before, this is ivy bridge specific topic, or precisely, intel section. for those who always talking about slow-moving-bulldozer-like-a-real-bulldozer in intel section, please play somewhere else. you are like a tennis player who want to play at a football field. shooh!

ivy bridge said to be max TDP at 77W. it is nice to hear and i will upgrade my current 2600K for that reason :D
 
G

Guest

Guest
I hate to say it, but after being an AMD customer for more than 10 years, it looks like I'm switching over to Intel when I build my future-proof machine next year. AMD's benchmarks just aren't cutting it and Ivy Bridge is looking SWEET! Once the PCI-E 3.0 video cards finally start rolling out, a brand new machine should be technologically relevant for the foreseeable future.

Speaking of video cards, this long-time NVIDIA customer might have to switch over to ATI. :( Just as Intel surpassed AMD, it looks like ATI is leaving NVIDIA in the dust also lately. We'll have to wait and see how the benchmarks look for the new PCI-E 3.0 video cards.

Can't wait!!
 

Phoenixlight

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2009
123
0
18,680
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Bulldozer is a disappointment so I had to go for pure speed and future proof system. [/citation]
That doesn't make any sense at all, you didn't have to go for the fastest option available you simply wanted to.
 

Mannaman

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2009
43
0
18,530
"all that said, we are literally talking about seconds of difference in speed, not minutes."

Yeah, but that's PER keystroke, not per job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.