Report: Intel Scheduling 22 nm Ivy Bridge for April 2012

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]Intel still suck. LONG LIVE AMD. Id rather Phenom series over stupid i series by intel.[/citation]
Funny how you're an AMD fanboy, yet mentioned nothing about going Bulldozer instead of Phenom, as you mentioned. Oh the irony!

My birthday's in April 😀
This would be a good present!
After using AMD for every single PC I've owned, I'd like to give Intel a try with Ivy.
 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]Even now, the performance of the Bulldozer has to be causing a loss of sleep at Intel. A quick revision by AMD could boost clock speeds a few hundred megahertz, which should be enough to exceed even the 486 in performance, on virtually all benchmarks with more than one thread running.[/citation]
Lol. Everything about this statement is wrong. The only thing fanboys have to cling on to anymore is Fusion, which is really no more impressive than shared RAM gpu's that have been around for a decade.
 
[citation][nom]omfg_people[/nom]jamesneed: Funny how it's always AMD's fault for everything AMD does, and when Intel has problems of it's own or fails to significantly improve on past products, it's also AMD's fault? I'm actually posting this from a Bulldozer machine, and at the risk of having an unpopular opinion, I'm going to come out and say that it's actually extremely fast, and multitasks better than any Intel quad. Really.I think we've found an adequate explanation for a lot of this mindless trolling:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15869683[/citation]
Having chosen Intel over anything else for the 1st time in 13 years of PC building doesn't really make me an AMD fan I guess. But I DO share your opinion concerning multi-tasking. It feels like the multi-core implementation on any current Intel is rather strange - much different than any multi-processor server platform I've ever played with, it feels more like a rebranded HyperThreading. AMD on the other hand resembles multi-processr systems with the feeling there seems to have horsepower to spare even if you peak all cores to 100%. My other complaint relates to Turbo Boost - it only seems to reach the peak clock advertised while running benchmarks, nothing else will do. Can't believe I'm the only 1 who noticed these things...
 
[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]Lol. Everything about this statement is wrong. The only thing fanboys have to cling on to anymore is Fusion, which is really no more impressive than shared RAM gpu's that have been around for a decade.[/citation]

I keep forgetting what blockheads actually post here, so it's definitely my mistake for not being more obvious.

You do know what a 486 is right? You do know matching a 486 in performance isn't very good, right? You do know what the word sarcasm means right?

Good grief.
 
Once again, Intel is for Benchmarks. I am a AMD Fanboy but the moral of the story is a person walks into Best Buy for a Mac Book Pro and was asked what he will use it for, reply was "school like um, word and email stuff". The counter reply was, a $1600 laptop for that?, yes I was told they are the best.

"Hence, 85% of people don't need intel" Won't notice a fuggen difference................
 
so intel is getting their !@#$% on. i hope they really are facing production problems cuz everything about this delay seems like a ploy to milk mainstream sandy bridge and specially sandy bridge-e even more before ivb comes out and makes sb-e upgrades 'not worth the money...ever'.
i partially blame amd for not releasing a competitive platform. yeah 990fx gives you one of the best chipset in terms of connectivity and pcie 2.0 lanes but what do you get to use with that? zam'disappointing/space heater/powersucker'bezi. interlagos doesn't seem all that great either, at least not enough to gain more server marketshare from intel. amd should have given intel a good run for their worth. kinda like what they (almost)did with bobcat and llano.
i wonder where the !@#$ is the revised version of fx..
this is what lack of competition results - laziness and delay.. 🙁
 
Heck, for a lot of things a i5 750 @ 2.66GHz is probably better than bulldozer, given how bulldozers have a bunch of slow cores and most stuff isn't really multithreaded for that.
 
[citation][nom]omfg_people[/nom]jamesneed: Funny how it's always AMD's fault for everything AMD does, and when Intel has problems of it's own or fails to significantly improve on past products, it's also AMD's fault? I'm actually posting this from a Bulldozer machine, and at the risk of having an unpopular opinion, I'm going to come out and say that it's actually extremely fast, and multitasks better than any Intel quad. Really.I think we've found an adequate explanation for a lot of this mindless trolling:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15869683[/citation]

That article addresses a legitimate concern. What it fails to address is the fact that a lot of the comments like yours are from fan boys who really don't care about the facts. You say Bulldozer multitasks better than any Intel quad (I'm assuming you're not counting hyperthreads) and yet I've read multiple reviews from trusted sites that say otherwise in most circumstances. Is it fast? Yes, but it's lacking when compared to the current Intel crop. This is how the pendulum swings and I'm sure AMD will temporarily take the lead back some day.
 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]I keep forgetting what blockheads actually post here, so it's definitely my mistake for not being more obvious. You do know what a 486 is right? You do know matching a 486 in performance isn't very good, right? You do know what the word sarcasm means right? Good grief.[/citation]

I got it. Thanks for the chuckle.

Processors from 2007 are still viable products (based on performance, not price or availability). For the mainstream use, I doubt the average joe could ever tell the different between the older and the newer. I don't like to point fingers at Intel or AMD. I don't like pin the successes or failures of one, on the other. I also don't like to accuse every decision or problem is directly influenced by the competition.

I like to blame the software guys.
 
[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]I'd hope that Intel would release a 6 core mobile CPU, or at least a high clocked quad core mobile CPU (3GHZ + constant hopefully) instead of just focusing on low tdp. Power efficiency is awesome but bleeding edge needs to be there too.[/citation]

The Core i7-2720QM, Core i7-2760QM, Core i7-2820QM, Core i7-2860QM, Core i7-2920XM, and Core i7-2960XM all turbo all 4 cores to 3+ ghz. Half of those have been out since January 9, 2011. You must be living under a rock to have not known about those.
 
[citation][nom]crazypcman[/nom]lets be careful before we king Intel and champion of the decade, IvyBridge has the same likelyhood to be a failure as Bulldozer, nothing is set in stone[/citation]

correct me if im wrong ivy bridge has nothing new and is just a die shrink, and maybe a graphics bump.

gpu will be pathetic, im assumeing, but we all know that.
the shrink will be able to pull faster speeds out of the cpu, but at the same time it wont be ungodly fast.

realistically, this may be more of a "failure" than people think, because honestly, even if you have an amd 3ghz quad core, or even a bulldozer, you do not need the performance bump this give. realistically, you don't need to upgrade anymore at all, cpu wise, unless you get a new motherboard.

i mean a core2 to an i7, or a phenom to an i7 when it was all new, would be a reasonable jump, but now? its not as large a margin as people think.

intel is releasing this because its a die shrink on a design they know, work out kinks in the fab process, than go full swing into new cpu design next.

intell is probably planning a loss on this gen with the cpu to get a jump on future gens.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]correct me if im wrong ivy bridge has nothing new and is just a die shrink, and maybe a graphics bump.[/citation]
Ivy Bridge is coming with tri-gate transistors. 30% faster and 50% less power consumption over SB. AMD is screwed so hard when Intel will be able to take a "garbage" Ivy Bridge cpu and sell it for $50 and still defeat a Phenom II X4.
 
I was a fan of AMD at it's golden period of amd 64bit athlon 3500+ etc.
I have to admit, AMD is losing the research race, which is sad for 2 things.

It gives Intel a monopolistic attitude that hurt us, the hobbists,
making us to change motherboards/rams/channels too often
and for small steps in performance 🙁

I was really happy with my socket 1366 / i7-920, however i was
forced to an upgrade because of motherboard failure.
i5-2500k is fine, really, but from i7-920 to ivy bridge even, the performance
in games, for example is really the same for me, considering i dont want to spend
300euro every year for graphic cards..

If this keeps on, cloud gaming will be reaaaaaaaally welcome
think about it,

if we spend 400euro/500$ every year on pc upgrades just to play the games at perfect quality
why not keep the same pc and play on cloud with just 10-20 bucks/month and all games be on good quality AND originals!

Is this where this thing is going? is it intentional (i bet it is )
 
If Intel keeps making cheap Pentium and Celeron Sandies, it will be a real problem for AMD

Tom, can we have a review pitting Pentium and Celeron Sandies VS Athlon II and Llano?
 
[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]If Intel keeps making cheap Pentium and Celeron Sandies, it will be a real problem for AMDTom, can we have a review pitting Pentium and Celeron Sandies VS Athlon II and Llano?[/citation]

That's true. Pentium G620 is a great budget CPU and performs similarly to similarly priced Athlons with more cores.
 
A big alarm for AMD..they dont have much time, and they need to bring some serious shit out..if die shrink and new process aids intel than why not AMD, where is all that innovation that AMD had at athlon 64 time..seems to be like some big monopoly going on inside for years
 
Since Core architecture Intel does not have any competition in the X86 market. Intel have no need to introduce faster/better things. We all know that Intel could release 4+ ghz parts if they wanted. But why if there is no competition?
This will bite Intel in the end. ARM 2007 416mhz. Intel quod core 3ghz. ARM 2011 Quod core 1.2ghz. Intel Hexa core 3.3ghz. ARM have increased in speed 16 times last 4 years. Intel just 2 times (if you consider Hyperthreading).
Next year many will have phones/tablets that are faster then their home computers and for 90% of the population they are fast enough for all the tasks they do. Just hook up any HDMI monitor and a wireless keyboard and you have a complete setup.

RISC and *nix is taking over the world. Fun how things turns out and we can finally put down 40 years legacy X86 microcode that is ineffective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom