Intel's Ivy Bridge Hotter Than Sandy Bridge When Overclocked

erunion · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]becherovka[/nom]So what exactly is the purpose of the heatspreader then? [/citation]

Same as always, to protect the die.

cbrunnem · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]I will be the first to say "meh"Yea, 20 degrees higher on a stock inch thick cooler. If you are going to overclock you can get a decent cooler for a couple dollars, I imagine it would still run within reasonable temperatures overclocked on a cheap aftermarket cooler.[/citation]
no they still run a lot hotter.

cbrunnem · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Ivy is only about 7% more power efficient than Sandy (going by Tom's review of them, the 3770K averaged 3.7% faster while using 3% less power during the full benchmark), so it's not really a huge benefit right now. This could be just because Intel put the voltage settings higher so they could use more power without increasing performance. A simple one or two page review to see how well Ivy under-volts might help to clarify this a little.Intel might have made lower power versions because Apple asked them to, but Ivy has nothing to do with that.[/citation]

you dont have any technical/engineering expertise or i hope you dont. a lot of small improvements over time make one big improvement. 7% in the grand scheme of everything isnt that much but for a laptop that already gets 5 hours of battery life would now get approximately 21 more minutes of battery.

blazorthon · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]cbrunnem[/nom]you dont have any technical/engineering expertise or i hope you dont. a lot of small improvements over time make one big improvement. 7% in the grand scheme of everything isnt that much but for a laptop that already gets 5 hours of battery life would now get approximately 21 more minutes of battery.[/citation]

Actually, since it only used 3% (very slightly less than 3%, more like 2.95% or so, but w/e) less power, it's less than half of what you said and is closer to a 8 or 9 minute improvement. You misunderstand the context. It was about 3.7% faster while using about 3% less power, resulting in about 6.8% greater power efficiency, and I rounded up to 7%. I would hope that before you pass judgement, you actually read about the topic.

However, this is how the i7-3770K and i7-2700K stacked up against each other. I suppose that different models (such as lower end models) might compare to each other differently.

blazorthon · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]PreferLinux[/nom]A very key word, and it applies to the power use too. The idle power consumption only dropped by a couple of watts, but the load power consumption dropped a lot more – close to 30 W. This results in a 16% reduction in system power at load, and the approximate CPU power (difference between load and idle power) is reduced by 31%. So the power consumption has actually dropped a lot – but not when idle (where it is probably minimal anyway).This brings me to my next point (which is not a reply to this post): The power consumption has gone down ~30%, and the CPU (only cores) die area has approximately halved (gone down 50%, but I'll say 45% for this to be generous). Now remember a critical point: heat is the power dissipated measured in watts, temperature is something else and is measured in degrees. The temperature is proportional to the heat, and inversely proportional to the area and anything else impeding the dissipation of the heat. We have 0.7 times the heat (I'm being generous and using a 30% lower power consumption, but it is probably actually less), while having 0.55 times the area (45% less). Starting with a temperature of 70 degrees, we'll multiply it by the change in power (0.7) as the temperature is proportional to heat, and then divide the result by the change in area (0.55) as the temperature is inversely proportional to area. So we have 70 * 0.7 / 0.55 = 89 degrees – exactly where we expected it at ~20 degrees higher temperatures. If we are less generous (lower drop in power consumption, or larger drop in area), which we probably should be, we get an even higher expected temperature.[/citation]

Average power usage went down only 3%. Most of the time, the processor is not at nor even close to being at load, so that Ivy's efficiency advantage over Sandy increases when at load has little bearing on what I said. Then you ignore that fact that the IGP, even when it's not in use with a display, uses some power. You over-simplified it. We also don't know how much the paste between the die and IHS instead of solder effected the temperatures. We also don't know if Ivy is generating more heat than it should be because of Intel putting more voltage than necessary through them (we don't know if that is even going on or not yet). Too many factors for this remain unknown at this time.

blazorthon · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]PreferLinux[/nom]But the thing is that it has nothing to do with area. It is saying that the number of transistors that can be put in an IC (of any size) inexpensively (enough that the price has decreased due to quantity but not enough that there are too many defects) will double every 24 months (which is what was originally stated – not 12 months).[/citation]

I said that it started off as every 12 months and slowed down to what it is today, not that it is still 12 months. In fact, that very wiki article even backs up my claim.

Moore's original statement that transistor counts had doubled every year can be found in his publication "Cramming more components onto integrated circuits", Electronics Magazine 19 April 1965:

and the statement refered to by this:

The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000. I believe that such a large circuit can be built on a single wafer.[6]

I knew that before I looked at the wiki article. I'm surprised that you didn't, yet you insult my knowledge nonetheless. It's at the top of the History section right below the wiki page's introduction.

PreferLinux · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I said that it started off as every 12 months and slowed down to what it is today, not that it is still 12 months. In fact, that very wiki article even backs up my claim.and the statement refered to by this:I knew that before I looked at the wiki article. I'm surprised that you didn't, yet you insult my knowledge nonetheless. It's at the top of the History section right below the wiki page's introduction.[/citation]
I'm sorry. I didn't read the history section as I didn't think it had any relevance – but I was definitely wrong.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Average power usage went down only 3%. Most of the time, the processor is not at nor even close to being at load, so that Ivy's efficiency advantage over Sandy increases when at load has little bearing on what I said. Then you ignore that fact that the IGP, even when it's not in use with a display, uses some power.[/citation]
Yes, average power went down 3%, but the load power went down much more. You were saying that they aren't a low-power chip compared to SB (at least, that is how I understood it – I'm sorry if I've taken that incorrectly), but they are in that the power use at load matters to some users and manufactures just as much as average – if you happen to be using a laptop for something CPU-intensive, the battery will last for quite a bit longer – but a lot of users and manufactures don't care about that I guess so you have a fair point in a way.

blazorthon · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]PreferLinux[/nom]I'm sorry. I didn't read the history section as I didn't think it had any relevance – but I was definitely wrong.Yes, average power went down 3%, but the load power went down much more. You were saying that they aren't a low-power chip compared to SB (at least, that is how I understood it – I'm sorry if I've taken that incorrectly), but they are in that the power use at load matters to some users and manufactures just as much as average – if you happen to be using a laptop for something CPU-intensive, the battery will last for quite a bit longer – but a lot of users and manufactures don't care about that I guess so you have a fair point in a way.[/citation]

Thanks for that. I'm sorry if I came off a bit rude and/or obnoxious, I sometimes do without noticing it.

blazorthon · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]PreferLinux[/nom]I'm sorry. I didn't read the history section as I didn't think it had any relevance – but I was definitely wrong.Yes, average power went down 3%, but the load power went down much more. You were saying that they aren't a low-power chip compared to SB (at least, that is how I understood it – I'm sorry if I've taken that incorrectly), but they are in that the power use at load matters to some users and manufactures just as much as average – if you happen to be using a laptop for something CPU-intensive, the battery will last for quite a bit longer – but a lot of users and manufactures don't care about that I guess so you have a fair point in a way.[/citation]

Thanks for that. i'm sorry about the rudeness, I can get a little carried away.

As for the power usage... I can see the misunderstanding there. I was going by the fact that most users don't get their CPUs fully loaded very much. I didn't really see how what I said (or in this case, typed) could be misunderstood because I knew the points that I wanted it to get across. I failed to consider the perspective of someone who focused on a different aspect or usage of the processors than mine and I failed to anticipate what their interpretation of it would be.

Within the context that I was using, I was saying that Ivy was not a big leap in performance, nor in power efficiency, not that it wasn't an improvement at all.

EDIT: Ack, double post. I swear, this is the buggiest site that I've ever used.

C12Friedman · May 3, 2012

Looks like my intended IB build is going to end up a PD build - hope PD doesn't have heat issues overclocked

blazorthon · May 3, 2012

C12Friedman :

As high as my hopes for Piledriver are, I still think that Piledriver will not come close to Ivy nor Sandy in performance, performance per watt, or even heat generation. Don't expect Piledriver to, at best, breach Nehalem performance by much, if it even gets that high. If you don't want Ivy, then Sandy is still the best option, that is unless you want the best highly threaded performance that you can muster at any given budget range, in which case PD might be for you. That is still a big might.

sonofliberty08 · May 3, 2012

ivy are the bulldozer from intel

blazorthon · May 3, 2012

sonofliberty08 :

No, they're not. Ivy is slightly faster and slightly more efficient (or significantly more power efficient if at load most of the time) than Sandy. THe Bulldozer based FX CPUs are not improvements over their Phenom II predecessors.

Bulldozer isn't even the problem. It's the design methods, huge cache latency, and the poor quality memory controller are far worse problems than Bulldozer's architecture.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/2
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/6
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037482638&postcount=88

Check it out if you want to know what you're talking about with that.

CaedenV · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]Oh noes! Intel Fanboys gonna be so mad. Bulldozer is cooler in this case after all[/citation]
you were allready at -20 and I still felt the need to vote you down... Dozer may not be as bad as what some would think, but it is still a flawd and terrible product that runs hotter, and costs more per performance than any Intel chip on the market.
[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]I will be the first to say "meh"Yea, 20 degrees higher on a stock inch thick cooler. If you are going to overclock you can get a decent cooler for a couple dollars, I imagine it would still run within reasonable temperatures overclocked on a cheap aftermarket cooler.[/citation]
English reading comprehension must not be high on your skill-set. This is talking about the paste inside the metal housing on the processor package. No matter the cooler you use you can fully expect IB to run 10-20c hotter than SB. Yes, a better cooler will run cooler than the stock cooler, but still hotter than SB would have been at the same frequency with the same cooler. As an example; my system runs ~40-42c at 4.2GHz with an aftermarket cooler. Using that same cooler on an IB at 4.2GHz would give me ~52-62c. Still very acceptable temperatures, but much hotter than the previous gen chips.
[citation][nom]BlackDeath[/nom]Just a thought but what if you removed the thermal plate that they used paste on and put artic silver on it and used an aftermarket water cooler? To hard to do? I know it would void the Intel warranty..[/citation]
Again, we are not talking about the paste between the package and the heat sink. We are talking about paste between the die and the metal heat spreader. No simple task, and you would likely ruin the CPU die in the process.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Since paste replaced the solder, maybe we can remove the IHS and do a better job of it ourselves, for those of us who are feeling adventurous.[/citation]
Finally someone gets it! And while I tend to be adventurous with my hardware... that is a bit too scary to me! I think they need to simply go back to the old way of soldering the chip to the spreader as that obviously worked better. Also, I would bet that this is the only real reason for the heat increase. The density may be a bit higher, but die shrinks have always meant lower temps per clock before, and I find it hard to believe the trend would break so quickly.

CaedenV · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]No, they're not. Ivy is slightly faster and slightly more efficient (or significantly more power efficient if at load most of the time) than Sandy. THe Bulldozer based FX CPUs are not improvements over their Phenom II predecessors.Bulldozer isn't even the problem. It's the design methods, huge cache latency, and the poor quality memory controller are far worse problems than Bulldozer's architecture.http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955 [...] 0-tested/2http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955 [...] 0-tested/6http://hardforum.com/showpost.php? [...] stcount=88Check it out if you want to know what you're talking about with that.[/citation]
Exactly! The overall design is really quite good, but some poor cache implementation requires constant loading and unloading of data from the L1 to system memory which brings the whole thing to its knees. Just a better cache implementation on Trinity (or whatever replaces Dozer) would bring massive improvements to performance and efficiency. Still not likely up to SB and IB, but at least moving forward instead of sideways (at best) or backwards (at worst) in performance to what were already 2-3 year old chips.

But here is the rub: Dozer is already expensive (they cannot match Intel on price per performance), adding more cache is only going to make it more expensive, and the cache was likely cut as a cost savings measure. So unless they can get their fab costs down, or find other ways around the cache problem, then it is not looking good for AMD.

blazorthon · May 3, 2012

CaedenV :

Well, I think that the die shrink actually plays a part in the temps problem, but that's me and some of the others here. I just think that there could be a wide variety of factors effecting the increase in temperature. You should realize that die shrinks generally didn't take the CPU from something that still uses a lot of power into something in such a small package. It is generating less heat like die shrinks tend to do, but it is just in a very small area and the thermal materials just can't move the heat from such a small spot quickly enough to keep the temps in line with Sandy.

Die shrinks didn't necessarily mean lower temps, just lower power usage and heat generation that could usually translate into lower temps because the thermal materials in use could handle the increase in heat density (assuming that that is the proper term for this). If Intel went back to the solder, then maybe temps would plummet, but maybe still be higher than Sandy. Of course, maybe they wouldn't. We don't know and won't know until we can compare an Ivy to a more or less identical Ivy, one with the current paste, and one with a better conducting paste or solder.

blazorthon · May 3, 2012

CaedenV :

It doesn't need more cache, it needs better cache. Also, the cache is just not the only problem. It is one of several. The design is one of the problems. The architecture is great, but the design and the architecture is not the same thing.

bildo123 · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]andboomer[/nom]I tried, but the museum was out of space. Full up on other outdated chips, like Bulldozer.[/citation]

BOOM HEADSHOT!!ONE!1

dalauder · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]JamesSneed[/nom]Well now im curious, some site than can afford to wreck a CPU needs to de-lid the proc and test with the CPU cooler making direct contact(i.e. photo above). That will prove if its the cheapo way of using thermal paste over soldered heat spreader or if its really the 22nm die shrink. Anyone?[/citation]If only there was some kind of tech-oriented website that was interested in thermal performance of CPUs! Seriously Tom's--be the first to answer this question...and possibly lead to hundreds of enthusiasts cracking their CPU die with liberally applied heatsink pressure. I know I'd do it if it *might* keep my CPU cool!

zeratul600 · May 3, 2012

so if the next IB cpus come with a soldered plate, it will run cooler than the old SB?

blazorthon · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]zeratul600[/nom]so if the next IB cpus come with a soldered plate, it will run cooler than the old SB?[/citation]

Maybe, but probably not. It should, at the least, be a lot closer to SB.

zeratul600 · May 3, 2012

hey blazor you again! you are becoming my personal guru or what? thank you!
i guess that it will be wise to wait for the second gen of IB, but then maybe we will be too close to the haswell tock, and it will be better to wait for it!

Phyrexiancure · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]BlackDeath[/nom]Just a thought but what if you removed the thermal plate that they used paste on and put artic silver on it and used an aftermarket water cooler? To hard to do? I know it would void the Intel warranty..[/citation]

In battlefield 3 64 player maps they're equal until you start using benching them against an i7. Yay for the Frostbite 2.0 engine multithreaded efficiency.

Phyrexiancure · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]trumpeter1994[/nom]Yeah but bulldozer struggles to keep up with Phenom 2.... Which it is supposed to replace...... and neither one can touch sandy bridge let alone ivy bridge which slightly out performs sandy bridge.[/citation]

In battlefield 3 64 player in maps they're equal until you start benching them against an i7. Yay for the Frostbite 2.0 engine multithreaded efficiency.

Phyrexiancure · May 3, 2012

[citation][nom]phyrexiancure[/nom]In battlefield 3 64 player in maps they're equal until you start benching them against an i7. Yay for the Frostbite 2.0 engine multithreaded efficiency.[/citation]

By them I mean phenom ii x6's and fx 8100's

Intel's Ivy Bridge Hotter Than Sandy Bridge When Overclocked

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Glorious

Glorious

Glorious

Distinguished

Glorious

Glorious

Glorious

Glorious

Distinguished

Glorious

Splendid

Splendid

Glorious

Glorious

Distinguished

Splendid

Honorable

Glorious

Honorable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page