Ivy Bridge CPU Torndown, Photographed, Tri-Gates Revealed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]Interesting mix of process tech. 90nm and 22nm tri gate.[/citation]

Just like your size can not be determined by height alone(height, width, thickness), the same is with transistors.

22nm is size of the gate, 90nm refers to the distance between transistors. Way different.
 
[citation][nom]frozonic[/nom]cheap n light..... nice, this proves we have advanced a lot! 4 years ago that game was unplayable even with Quad sli @ 1080p with maximun details[/citation]

This has nothing to do with...anything here really. Crysis 2 was dumbed down to keep it even with consoles, as well as featuring better optimization than the original Crysis (which was a beast, but by NO means needed quad SLI to be played at max graphics, unless you were using cards that were 1-2 years old at that stage).

Related to the article: I want me an electron microscope! 😀
 
[citation][nom]josejones[/nom]I'd like to find out if the TDP specs have changed in the new Ivy Bridge CPU going from 77 watts up to 95 watts or not? Intel’s Ivy Bridge Core i7 3770K Retail Box Leaked – TDP Raised to 95W?If so, will it only be an issue with the k overclock versions or will it be an issue with all Ivy Bridge CPU's across the board i.e. k, s, t, and the regular 3770 and 3570's?[/citation]

K series are always higher -- normal. Standard cpus should be less ~65-80w
 
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]..Its true now though, they nerfed it to a console port to make more money off the kiddies. Crysis 3 wont be any different than 2 was, just new environments. Very few games are built on the PC first which is sad.[/citation]

Its not sad its pathetic
 
[citation][nom]josejones[/nom]I'd like to find out if the TDP specs have changed in the new Ivy Bridge CPU going from 77 watts up to 95 watts or not? Intel’s Ivy Bridge Core i7 3770K Retail Box Leaked – TDP Raised to 95W?If so, will it only be an issue with the k overclock versions or will it be an issue with all Ivy Bridge CPU's across the board i.e. k, s, t, and the regular 3770 and 3570's?[/citation]

New tech... though it does make me nervous that the CPUs are not going to last. They could be cooking themselves from the inside out, and though they should last through warranty, this does not mean they are still not design flawed.
 
[citation][nom]Kryan[/nom]This has nothing to do with...anything here really. Crysis 2 was dumbed down to keep it even with consoles, as well as featuring better optimization than the original Crysis (which was a beast, but by NO means needed quad SLI to be played at max graphics, unless you were using cards that were 1-2 years old at that stage).Related to the article: I want me an electron microscope![/citation]
mmm well, 1080p wasn't a problem for 2x 8800 ultras when they came out. It was the 2560x1600 res that was never playable, and that was because of bad coding.
 
they have better after market heatsinks and waterblocks now so heat shouldn't be as much of a problem for it as before IF Intel smartens up and includes a proper heatsink/fan combo with the Ivy bridge CPU so it doesn't get unstable under load due to heat.
 
" http://www.custompcreview.com/2012/04/15/intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-box-leaked-tdp-95w/ "

Ouch... All of that time and money invested into being the first to 22nm, and they gained literally nothing, and in fact may have even regressed?

Intel apparently has too much pride to delay their 22nm long enough to get it right. It could be another 6 to 12 months or longer before they get it together, I guess their going to start selling you nanometers much like they sold Ghz in the Pentium4 era.

What's worse is that if Trinity and Piledriver do well, then GloFo's 32nm process may perform just as well or better than Intel's 22nm, which could mean another coupe just like Athlon64. Except of course, it will be even worse, because AMD also has a massive integrated graphics lead now.
 
[citation][nom]Core_i_pocalypse[/nom]" http://www.custompcreview.com/2012 [...] d-tdp-95w/ "Ouch... All of that time and money invested into being the first to 22nm, and they gained literally nothing, and in fact may have even regressed?Intel apparently has too much pride to delay their 22nm long enough to get it right. It could be another 6 to 12 months or longer before they get it together, I guess their going to start selling you nanometers much like they sold Ghz in the Pentium4 era.What's worse is that if Trinity and Piledriver do well, then GloFo's 32nm process may perform just as well or better than Intel's 22nm, which could mean another coupe just like Athlon64. Except of course, it will be even worse, because AMD also has a massive integrated graphics lead now.[/citation]
Everybody is getting hot and bothered about the IB OC temps. At stock it does not get hot. The performance reviews that have been out already suggest that IB is ~5-10% better per clock and per watt than SB was, with a much better GPU. Believe it or not that is progress. Will it break any OC records? Not likely. But it is a clearly better CPU... just weak on the OC side of things.

Besides, the IB chips coming out a few months from now will no dobut be better than the ones produced at first. I is merely a matter of figuring out their process and ironing out the rest of the kinks. By the time Haswell comes out (lol if it comes out as I understand this is the 4th Intel product with that name and the other 3 turned into vaporware) they will have 22 down pat, and combined with a new architecture we will see the performance we were looking for.
 
I'm excited about this. With AMD's current situtation, there's really no way this will fail (a bit unfortunate, since nothing's stopping Intel from jacking up their prices now).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom