Official Intel Ivy Bridge Discussion

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
That was a good point esrever made above... can the IB processors actually HANDLE more heat? Does anyone have any info on that? 'Cause if they can, then it may not be a step down, after all.

However, I've got the feeling that if that was the case, Intel would make sure everyone knew it.
 
Although all of the information in this (see below) link is already confirmed elsewhere, it is interesting to see it all directly from Intel:

http://ark.intel.com/products/65523/Intel-Core-i7-3770K-Processor-%288M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz%29

First, the link confirms Monday was just the announcement ("paper launch" I like to call it) and the 29th is the "hard launch"

And second, it confirms Ivy's official TDP is still 77W, even if the boxes may say 95W and the systems still be designed for 95W.

Unfortunately they don't list a recommended customer price yet.
 
I think the recommended price is going to be $225... it seems to be the common agreement. I'd be VERY surprised if it went for more, since it's not even all that good...
 
With enough synthetics to work off and day to day testing, it appears it is closer to the 3% mark if anything, it was believed a 4.5ghz IB equaled a 5ghz SB, but as it turns out it is closer to a 4.650ghz~4.7ghz SB. I would not call it ground breaking, even for overclocking, you get marginally better synthetics (and I mean marginal) but you kind of get left with the feeling of "something is missing".

We are not feeling the love, this is more akin to a 40 year marriage that is stale oposed to the engagement to a swimwear model, which was the case with Sandybridge.
 
IS it 10C? Also, good point on the heat. We don't really know enough about the 3D transistors (at least I don't) to figure all of this out. Also, I really don't think it handles heat better, since that would be a marketable feature that Intel wouldn't miss out on
 
I was really in hopes of a SB or IB CPU advancement that was not sporting IGP, not a crippled CPU like the 2550K, but a CPU completely designed for the discrete GPU crowd.

The hopes were without all that additional IGP processing and the IGP controller on board the CPU, we would be able to reach even higher goals on the overclocking front.

All that added IGP stolen performance from the CPUs raw capabilities would have been really beneficial to have had full access to for the discrete GPU user crowd.

I know IGP is the future, but it would still be nice to have it both ways.

 

Quantum Computing is the future! :sol:
 



Which is sort of odd that, according to some of the reviews/benches Ivy Bridge slayed everything else (including SB-E) in video encoding. Or did I imagine that? I forgot where it was, over in the thread formerly known as Ivy Bridge/Haswell Rumours....etc...but why would IB kick ass at something like that, but be a milquetoast improvement over its predecessor in almost everything else except stock clock power consumption and IGP?
 
Watts = Heat
It wont heat your rig up more, it should actually be cooler, using less watts.
Its just all that heat is concentrated in a smaller area, or less wattage in a much smaller area.
Heat dispersion happens, it just starts at a higher level of heat at certain voltages.
 
Unless it inhibits your OCing, it isnt a problem.
Its using less power, so emitting less heat overall.
The design is set to take a bit more heat than SB, but being that the size is hugely different between the two, even less watts makes IB need to have a higher temp per square mm, as the voltage reduction wasnt equal to the size reduction.
 
The heat spreader needs improvement to handle the smaller die.

Add some Graphene Intel! 25% better

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/science-research-cooling-heat-cooling,15282.html

Maybe they'll do that for the minor clock speed bumps down the road. There's still headroom at the stock voltages.

Guess we have to wait for the retail release to get more under/overclock results. Can the IGP be disabled 100% from the BIOS for better thermals?
 


I believe they added something specifically when it came to encoding.
 
oc-ivydie-2-640x291.jpg

Ivy Bridge Temperatures – It’s Gettin’ Hot in Here..."
http://www.overclockers.com/ivy-bridge-temperatures
 
It would be far more beneficial for temperatures to take a more direct route such as:
CPU Die -> 5 W/mK TIM -> Heatsink

OK! i am now going to take the IHS off of my i3 :)
 
I'll summarize that article:
It's them cheaping out on the paste. I'm assuming they couldn't get the price down low enough so they had to cut corners somewhere. Not too many you can cut on a CPU, so they went with the heat paste... but why? It's not like it's not obvious. Here's the summary from the actual website:

So based on what evidence we could find from our own investigation, as well as what experience has taught us, Ivy Bridge is running hot when overclocked because of TIM paste between the IHS compared to solder attach used on Sandy Bridge. Why Intel made this choice we aren’t yet sure. We also aren’t sure if they will continue using TIM paste on the Ivy Bridge line, or if this will only be seen on the Engineering Samples like the units sent out for review. However, we’ve put word out again to Intel and are waiting to hear back if they have any further insight or comment to offer.
 
"... the Engineering Samples ..." :heink:
I thought we were past this point. Sensational post until you read the details.
I wonder if we could solder them ourselves.
 
Yeah, I'd be very surprised if they changed something now. Especially because they'd lose a lot of money on a delayed release date (familiar?) and having to buy good paste.
 


All the stores (online) I have asked have said Friday - Wednesday... sometime in that area.

Newegg should have them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom