Report: Intel Ivy Bridge EX Will Sport Up to 15 Cores

Status
Not open for further replies.

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
915
1
18,990
1
[citation][nom]ilysaml[/nom]15 Cores? And 15 Threads? 30 MB L3 Cache? WTF?[/citation]
I don't see anything in the article about threads. My bet is it is more than likely there will be 30-threads available.
 

jn77

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
587
0
18,990
2
Its about time consumers are getting 8 core Intel CPU's but it is sad that they won't make a consumer 15 core processor available yet.

In my case, this would be for 1080p and 4k video editing...... not checking email.
 

juan83

Distinguished
May 17, 2011
53
0
18,640
1
cool.. but what about prices? i mean, in 2 or 3 years from now, 4 cores would be as cheap as 2 cores now? i hope so, otherwise 100 cores are useless, simply i can't afford them.. :(
 

CaedenV

Splendid
This is super exciting! 15 cores and probably 30 threads is an incredable amount of horsepower in a single chip. And as server boards can typically do 2 CPUs then you are talking about 60 threads of raw multitasking power! Phenominal!

Very glad to see DDR4 coming out as well, while ram does not bottleneck games, it is most definitely the slow point on some higher end business and server applications. Also the higher density that DDR4 brings means either less dimms needed, or more Ram available to a system. Hopefully too we will see DDR4 drop in price like a rock so that we can see it come out in phones in a year or two. DDR4's major focus was on power usage and density, so maybe we will be able to see some 2-4GB ram phones that can still keep some decent battery life.
[citation][nom]jn77[/nom]Its about time consumers are getting 8 core Intel CPU's but it is sad that they won't make a consumer 15 core processor available yet.In my case, this would be for 1080p and 4k video editing...... not checking email.[/citation]
I would imagine the odd core count is exactly a yield issue. I mean, imagine the size of that die! That has got to be a monster! Getting a full 16 cores is probably rare enough that they would just use them in house when one happens to work out that way. Another interesting thought is that this is using some of the tech used in (I think it was called) Knights Corner where you had 'backup' CPU cores, and if one failed then you essentially had a hot spare to take it's place on the fly, preventing the need for down time, or for Intel to bother sending your a whole new chip.
 

nino_z

Honorable
Jan 21, 2013
60
0
10,640
1
The question is - where are the new CPUs coming out. I wanna build a new pc soon and hate waiting too long.
 

novaguy

Honorable
Mar 24, 2012
23
0
10,520
1
[citation][nom]Jerky_san[/nom]Wonder why the odd number? Easier yields or something?[/citation]

My guess is that they can now fit 3 rows of 5 cores in the package due to the die shrink.
 

Fokissed

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2010
392
0
18,810
13
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Why '15' ? Everything in IT is 2^n so one would expect 16 cores.Is there a technical reason ?[/citation]
Their hexa-cores weren't 2^n, and really there is no reason to be.
 

Fokissed

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2010
392
0
18,810
13
[citation][nom]novaguy[/nom]My guess is that they can now fit 3 rows of 5 cores in the package due to the die shrink.[/citation]
Or the huge front-end, back-end, and cache on the die means that a square number of cores isn't needed. (the scheduler probably takes as much room as the 16th core)
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
[citation][nom]jn77[/nom]Its about time consumers are getting 8 core Intel CPU's but it is sad that they won't make a consumer 15 core processor available yet.[/citation]
Most software today hardly makes significant use of even a 2nd core. The number of "consumers" who genuinely need more than a quad-core is likely well under 1% of that market. Considering that the die size will be 3-4X that of i7-3770, that means 3-4X the risk of defects per die and also much fewer dies per wafer on top of much higher wafer edge losses. It does not make much sense to manufacture "consumer" CPUs that are so expensive that 'consumers' cannot afford them.

I wouldn't quite call LGA2011 boards/CPUs "consumer" since they are more than half-way into Xeon territory.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
[citation][nom]Fokissed[/nom]Their hexa-cores weren't 2^n, and really there is no reason to be.[/citation]
The main reason why digital things tend to scale with powers of two is simply that adding an extra bit in addressing/arbitration logic doubles the number of possible outcomes and that makes doubling everything else the most intuitive way forward from a digital engineering perspective.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
Been wondering about the 15 cores too...it makes me as uncomfortable as the thought of 3 cores. 6 cores is still even so kind of feels ok...:lol:

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]most likely Q3[/citation]
Between May 27th and June 4th, if rumors are to be believed. Though actual product launch day is apparently June 2nd. That's like...just between Q2 and Q3, though that depends on Intel's financial year...
 

trumpeter1994

Honorable
Mar 27, 2012
311
0
10,810
8
Hope upgrading on Haswell won't put me in the same boat as building on my Core 2 quad did, everything was moving to DDR3 and I was on DDR2, Really don't want to build my haswell rig just to have DDR4 come out on the consumer end immediately afterwards
 

danwat1234

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
1,392
0
19,310
9
Hmm, 6 core high end mobile chips coming? Maybe not until 14nm/10nm Sky chips?
Single core performance is king, expanding to more cores should be a last resort for more computing power
 

Pherule

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2010
591
0
19,010
8
It's about friggin' time, Intel. I was expecting 64-cores by 2012.

Time to boost the default (non-extreme) line of standard core count to 6 - 8 cores?
 
G

Guest

Guest
This is great news. I just hope AMD can keep up so that regular people can actually afford 6-8 core chips and DDR4 memory.

However, with Sandy Bridge I can probably skip Ivy Bridge, Haswell and even Broadwell. Skylake is coming in 2015, I should be fine for at least 2 years with overclocking.
 
G

Guest

Guest
15 cores is still not enough
every die shrink leads to a doubling of the area and the transistors density on the die
65*65 is twice as much as 45*45 which is twice 32*32 which is twice 22*22 nanometers
So if we had a Q6600 on 65 nm hat means we ought to have an octocore on 45 nm(it exists on server side only,Nehalem-EX) ,a 16-core on 32-nm(AMD is the only manufacturer of Opteron 16 core chips) and a 32-core on 22 nm (now)
So we hve 15 cores with 30 threads now from Intel and probably AMD will have 32 cores in a year or two from now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY