Ivy Bridge to Have a Maximum TDP of 77 Watts

[Area51]

[citation][nom]soccerdocks[/nom]I was just about to say that. If you look at what Intel has planned for the future (even the little information that is publicly available) you can see that they will be making more significant advances. These things have been planned for years and will not change because AMD does not have a competing processor. The only thing that may happen is that the new processors will be delayed by a few months and be $20-50 more expensive, but I'm not even sure that will happen.[/citation]

The problem is that "in general" applications don't scale well with higher number of cores. Also increasing the cores requires higher power consumption and lower frequecy. you can't just increase the core count. it's like the frequency war and we all know where that ended up. If you look at the latest benchmarks you can conclude that currently about every 2.3 cores from AMD has the same performance as 1 Core from Intel.

 

[Area51]

[citation][nom]ben850[/nom]I'm currently on a Phenom II x4 am2+ build. Assuming I want to ditch AMD, what would you recommend for an Intel build? I don't want to spend more than 400$ on the mobo/cpu and I can wait probably a year before truly requiring an upgrade..The i5-2500K seems like the sweet spot but I also am clearly not educated on what Intel has on it's horizon[/citation]

YOu should probobly wait until Q1 of 2012 then you will have the i5-35xxk and that will give you USB 3 and significantly better performance vs. the existing i5-2500. ALso since the TDP is dropping, if you are an OC then there is more headroom.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

The Intel naming convention for cpu's is confusing me. I liked it better when it was something simple like Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV.

 

[Guest]

I really want these CPUs. I know USB 3 is coming with them and supposedly LightPeak ThunderPort or whatever it's called. With a much better IGP, this is truly the chip to wait for if they include the new interfaces on the updated motherboards.

Now, would someone please make a reliable SSD that doesn't slow down too much with added data that is 1 TB in size and costs under $400! Thank you.

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]makaveli316[/nom]"The Z68, P67, H67 and H61 chipsets look to all be compatible with a required UEFI update" Where's the catch?[/citation]
no native USB3 support (though the mobo may add it though chips), limited or no PCIe3, slower memory support, etc.
[citation][nom]ben850[/nom]I'm currently on a Phenom II x4 am2+ build. Assuming I want to ditch AMD, what would you recommend for an Intel build? I don't want to spend more than 400$ on the mobo/cpu and I can wait probably a year before truly requiring an upgrade..The i5-2500K seems like the sweet spot but I also am clearly not educated on what Intel has on it's horizon[/citation]
The i5 is the sweet spot. The non-K version is wonderful and cheaper if you do not OC. Also Microcenter has dirt cheap prices on these processors, and killer discounts on high end boards if you buy the proc and mobo at the same time (granted their mobo selection is a bit slim compared to online retailers, but $80 off is mighty tempting).
As to the future; IB will be the same basic processor as the SB chips out today. There will be a die shrink, plus the 3D gates which will cut a lot of power consumption, especially at idle (which normally means higher OC headroom). Also they are adding USB3 and PCIe3 support, a better on-board GPU, and faster RAM support. This will be my proc as it will be the mature version of a great architecture.
The next year (2013ish assuming the world doesn't end ) will bring a new architecture which will be implemented in haswell/broadwell chips. This is where we should see a larger improvement in processing power, which you will not see between the SB->IB refresh.

If you are itching to upgrade you wont have many regrets getting the current chips as IB will not be a major upgrade in performance (just effecency and features). But if you want to wait, IB will be out in late Q1 or early Q2 of next year which is not that far away in the grand scheme of things. I only upgrade my core system every 5 years, so it is worth it for me to wait for the faster graphics and memory buses. If you upgrade more often then why wait?

 

[j0um]

[citation][nom]makaveli316[/nom]"The Z68, P67, H67 and H61 chipsets look to all be compatible with a required UEFI update" Where's the catch?[/citation]
You're need to pay for firmware updates lol

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]Zanny[/nom]That IS the rabbit. When Amd released the Athlon 64 line Intel was stagnant on the Pentium 4 line and had not innovated since Pentium 2 was the colossal success it was. The problem with Intel is they now have this huge refinement process that they have planned out until 2016, with the tick-tock cycle. They have teams and such commited to each new step of their evolution until the end of the decade, so its unlikely they will slow down and lay people off to not push the tech. They probably learned when they had to adopt AMDs 64 bit instruction set that they can't give them headroom.Its good for the industry to have AMD competitive, but for the time being everyone is winning because Intel is trying to avoid another multi core / 64 bit disaster like at the turn of the century.[/citation]
Yep, there are two ways to run a tech business, the current Apple way and the current Intel way.
One is to run the race and when a rival gets close to trip them up, stamp on their ankle then carry on at a canter.
The other is when a rival gets close you dig deep and run faster and cross the line to the sound of cheering crowds.
Guess which is which.

 

[Guest]

> If AMD gets a 16 core high end CPU that clocks as high as Bulldozer they would beat any quad core offering Intel could put out.

Why do all "hardware enthusiasts" not involver in software development or systems administration imply 100% multi-core scalability? In reality, when you have >10 cores, very few loads can achieve 60-80% scalability, and none of this loads are common for desktops.

There is one big reason why some applications can make advantage of many cores and other cannot. This is because most tasks are serial by nature. You can split such a task into small jobs and run each job in a single thread, but still one thread will work and the others will wait for data. You cannot take nine women and get a baby in a month.

So making each core faster is the only sane choice in most cases, excluding mindless number-crunching. You shouldn't rant about "stupid developers", you should rant about our imperfect world, which has such a terrible thing as causality.

And speaking of BD, it looks like 4GHz 8 core Atom.

 

[nosnitrousx]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]IN YOUR FACE AMD! Who drops sockets all the time now, huh? And that max TDP... in your face as well![/citation]

LOL...That was harsh
Though you`re totally right.

 

[zanny]

[citation][nom]Area51[/nom]The problem is that "in general" applications don't scale well with higher number of cores. Also increasing the cores requires higher power consumption and lower frequecy. you can't just increase the core count. it's like the frequency war and we all know where that ended up. If you look at the latest benchmarks you can conclude that currently about every 2.3 cores from AMD has the same performance as 1 Core from Intel.[/citation]

This is something programmers like myself need to deal with. We were raised on single core systems where all you were doing was minimizing the cycles needed to do what you were doing. We didn't have the ability to do more than one thing at once. Any new software written since 2006 better be using 4+ threads for any CPU intensive work because almost all CPU heavy work is a loop. A CPU can do a square root in a few dozen cycles. Doing 5000 of them will take some time. But as long as the data is not interrelated, like square roots on 5k numbers, we can thread it out across all the cores available to us.

In a few decades, programs and program languages will be built to allow programs to run sections of it simultaneously and seamlessly. OpenMP for C is a great example of this.

 

[Guest]

If Ivybridge IGP can match Llano, I am afraid its tickets for AMD, the only chip I am now currently using in builds is A3850, have now moved over to intel pretty much completely, AMD just does not have the bang for buck anymore, My 1055t @ 3.8GHZ will probably be replaced next year by an Intel setup again!

 

[geekapproved]

I hope AMD pulls out of the cpu market so all you miserable fanboys that think your cool talking smack can get anal raped by Intel on your next cpu. Can you say $1000 cpu upgrade? It will happen.
Happy days!

 

[ProDigit10]

If they would make a corei3 version, it probably will have a TDP of

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]Zanny[/nom]That IS the rabbit. When Amd released the Athlon 64 line Intel was stagnant on the Pentium 4 line and had not innovated since Pentium 2 was the colossal success it was. The problem with Intel is they now have this huge refinement process that they have planned out until 2016, with the tick-tock cycle. They have teams and such commited to each new step of their evolution until the end of the decade, so its unlikely they will slow down and lay people off to not push the tech. They probably learned when they had to adopt AMDs 64 bit instruction set that they can't give them headroom.Its good for the industry to have AMD competitive, but for the time being everyone is winning because Intel is trying to avoid another multi core / 64 bit disaster like at the turn of the century.[/citation]

Core count makes no difference, if the software doesn't use the additional cores. Intel keeps producing quad cores because consumer software hasn't caught up to them yet. The majority of consumer software is still stuck in the Pentium4/PentiumD days. Until software starts using 4+ threads, there's no reason to have consumer processors with more than 4 cores. AMD had a great idea with Bulldozer....the problem is, the implementation sucks. You need high IPC, large resource pool, highly threaded applications and an OS optimized for the architecture. None of which Bulldozer has....

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]I hope AMD pulls out of the cpu market so all you miserable fanboys that think your cool talking smack can get anal raped by Intel on your next cpu. Can you say $1000 cpu upgrade? It will happen.Happy days![/citation]
If AMD pulls out of the consumer processor market, Intel will face an Anti-Trust suit from the US Department of Justice because they will effectively have a monopoly on the consumer CPU market. AMD pulling out wouldn't just screw consumers, but it would screw Intel as well.

 

[Guest]

So Intel will have twice the performance per core at 66% of the TDP. Nice! Cant wait to drop in upgrade next summer!

 

[CyberAngel]

Ivy Bridge is also a sort of "half-tock" eg.
not a big HW change, yet still with enhancements to keep it up-to-date

 

[danwat1234]

[citation][nom]species8472[/nom]AMD had better pull a rabbit out of its hat soon or Intel will stagnate.[/citation]

PileDriver and Trinity.

 

[silverblue]

[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]So Intel will have twice the performance per core at 66% of the TDP. Nice! Cant wait to drop in upgrade next summer![/citation]
No, they won't. The performance increase will be measurable but not significant. Unless, of course, you mean double the performance per core of Bulldozer, in which case you'd be much closer to the truth.

 

[danwat1234]

[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]Just leave Crysis running on it...it will heat up[/citation]
Foldin[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Well that is disheartening: How can I use my CPU as a space heater this winter if intel keeps lowering their desktop TDPs?...Guess I have to get a new Dual GPU video card with a 1.5 KW PSU to make up the difference...What a shame[/citation]

Folding@Home , einstein@Home or Seti@home !

-------------
Since the tdp is 77 watts, it's obvious that Intel won't be releasing (at least at first) an 8-core CPU, otherwise I'd think it would be around 130w tdp.
Here to hoping that AMD has a chance to catch up a bit with Piledriver and their integrated GPU solution, Trinity (Which has Piledriver has the CPU). Hoping for some good laptop chips from AMD

 

[Guest]

bulldozer + HD 6970 = if they can only make this one cheaply

 

[Guest]

Another sensationalist half-truth. It sounds to me like they're lowering mid-range products TDP by 18w, which isn't unreasonable considering it's a die shrink of same said architecture, plus some minor tweaks.

Sandy Bridge-E will be the full 130w or whatever, and I'm sure Ivy Bridge-E will be the same.

 

[josejones]

I've only ever had AMD CPU's - due to Intel's outrageous prices and lack of easy upgradeability. However, I am seriously thinking about going with Intel's new Ivy Bridge. I'm really liking the USB3 and PCIe3 support, better on-board GPU, and faster RAM support. Plus, the low wattage and decent energy efficiency - 77 watts is impressive.

The only thing that would hold me back is price, as per usual with Intel. I hope Ivy Bridge will be competitively priced or I won't be going Intel.

 

[Shin-san]

That's both impressive, plus it brings Intel CPUs to where they can be used in a game console

 

[livebriand]

Sweet, nice! How will the performance compare to Sandy Bridge? THIS is what I want to see happening.

But will this have USB 3.0 in the chipset? Sandy Bridge ones STILL lack that. Heck, my 1.5 year old 1156 board has that (via a 3rd party Renesas/NEC controller).