Report: Intel Scheduling 22 nm Ivy Bridge for April 2012

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
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]shompa[/nom]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.[/citation]
Arm increasing speed 16 times in 4 years (I don't know if that's true but lets run with it) isn't that impressive when you stop and consider that it's easier to implement speed increases when your starting from a slower point. It would be like expecting Ferrari to be able to increase their cars top speeds as many times as say Hyundai could easily do. Hyundai has a lot of wiggle room atm whereas Ferrari does not.
 
[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]
Don't forget dumbasses who think they know something by parroting some else's comments.
 
[citation][nom]mstngs351[/nom]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]
It lacks what? Take for example FX8150. It overall in generally performs between i5 2500K and i7 2600K, and it's price is between them. Bulldozer lacks nothing, it's AMD who lacks high end processor in FX generation. But if you compare what is important, bang for buck, Intel and AMD offer you the same. In low segment AMD outperforms with Llano, Bulldozer is on par with Intel in mainstream market, but Intel has no competition in high end. Just take a look at performance comparation. Use Google to find them.
 
[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]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.[/citation]

isnt that the chip after ivy bridge that will have it?

but pricing is a point, lets assume that ivy replaces the i7 range, it would have to be over 200% faster than a phenom II, and im looking at a 100$ chip. we could also look at the apu chips and such, but once you have the better gpu in there it really shows where intel lacks.

intel has a good cpu, but a crap gpu.
amd has a decent cpu, and a great gpu

the gpu shows off more often than the intel cpu, because honestly, a task that use to take 10-20 minutes even on the best intel, not takes either 30 seconds on an intel and at absolute worst dubble that for the phenom. and even than, the tasks that use to make a cpu shine have been offloaded to the gpu, making the cpu almost irrelevant.

lets look at this in all seriousness, do you need an ivybridge or even the one after it.
 
This leaves me in a tough spot I plan on buying my system in early February. Do I wait on my already ancient system or do I just buy the Z68 board and upgrade to the Ivy bridge chip when I can.
 
[citation][nom]clonazepam[/nom]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]

No doubt about software being incredibly inefficient. Windows is so bloated it defies reason. You have layer on top of layer of garbage, all adding more inefficiency.

The sad reality of it is, back in the 286 days, we were doing pretty much everything that's done today, except watch movies. The internet wasn't around, but bulletin boards were. Mainframes with only a small fraction of the processing power of a 2007 processor were running businesses effectively.

That's the problem. Processor development has been so outstanding, software development has been atrocious. It gets sloppier and sloppier, under the guise that performance losses don't matter much because hardware keeps getting faster so quickly.

Intel is as good as Microsoft is bad. The only reason Microsoft and others can write such hideously bad software is because Intel keeps advancing processor speeds so effectively.

But, that day is coming to an end. You can't keep shrinking lithographies indefinitely, and as they get closer and closer to the atomic level, there's just no more shrinking. They'll fix their designs by doing more handcoding, and do tweaks, but there will definitely be stagnation. At that point, the software companies are going to actually have to write the same tight code we were writing 25 years ago, where you worried about every byte you used (still important, it improves cache performance), and every instruction you executed, instead of this garbage that's written today.

It always makes me scratch my head when applications are taking billions of bytes of memory, that we were able to get done with less than 8 MB, easily.
 
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Why should I spend my hard earned money on inferior hardware? AMD's CPUs are already a year behind Intel's even with Bulldozer.[/citation]

Whats your point.... My 1100t @4.2 with a 6970 has no issues.... No reason to spend more unless I throw a 1000 pictures into adobe at once. Heck, mise well buy a lambo, my WS6 isn't fast enough. Wait, lets buy a 2600k and 2x 580's to game at 1920x1080. Right now, the only true upgrade option is a SSD. Wait till software makes the difference....
 
[citation][nom]hetneo[/nom]It lacks what? Take for example FX8150. It overall in generally performs between i5 2500K and i7 2600K, and it's price is between them. Bulldozer lacks nothing, it's AMD who lacks high end processor in FX generation. But if you compare what is important, bang for buck, Intel and AMD offer you the same. In low segment AMD outperforms with Llano, Bulldozer is on par with Intel in mainstream market, but Intel has no competition in high end. Just take a look at performance comparation. Use Google to find them.[/citation]

I regularly read multiple review sites and was disappointed by Bulldozer. Overall the 2500k beats the 8150 more often than not unless you start throwing a lot of processes at it which should hold true since the 2500k is just a dual core and nearly a year old. Even then the 2500k holds up admirably. Heck the i7-920 beats it on occasion and it's several years old. The 8150 also uses more power. I'd rather spend $69 less and get the 2500k which would handle MY average workload better or spend $30 more and get the 2600k. If you cant justify the extra 30 and will spend all of your time throwing a lot of work at it then the 8150 should perform nicely. I just expected more from the Bulldozer launch.
 
[citation][nom]zloginet[/nom]Whats your point.... My 1100t @4.2 with a 6970 has no issues.... No reason to spend more unless I throw a 1000 pictures into adobe at once. Heck, mise well buy a lambo, my WS6 isn't fast enough. Wait, lets buy a 2600k and 2x 580's to game at 1920x1080. Right now, the only true upgrade option is a SSD. Wait till software makes the difference....[/citation]

The thing is that the 8150 is marginally cheaper than the 2600k and a fair amount more than the 2500k. I get your point that most people don't need big power but then the 8150 wouldn't be for them either.
 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]No doubt about software being incredibly inefficient. Windows is so bloated it defies reason. You have layer on top of layer of garbage, all adding more inefficiency. The sad reality of it is, back in the 286 days, we were doing pretty much everything that's done today, except watch movies. The internet wasn't around, but bulletin boards were. Mainframes with only a small fraction of the processing power of a 2007 processor were running businesses effectively. That's the problem. Processor development has been so outstanding, software development has been atrocious. It gets sloppier and sloppier, under the guise that performance losses don't matter much because hardware keeps getting faster so quickly.Intel is as good as Microsoft is bad. The only reason Microsoft and others can write such hideously bad software is because Intel keeps advancing processor speeds so effectively. But, that day is coming to an end. You can't keep shrinking lithographies indefinitely, and as they get closer and closer to the atomic level, there's just no more shrinking. They'll fix their designs by doing more handcoding, and do tweaks, but there will definitely be stagnation. At that point, the software companies are going to actually have to write the same tight code we were writing 25 years ago, where you worried about every byte you used (still important, it improves cache performance), and every instruction you executed, instead of this garbage that's written today. It always makes me scratch my head when applications are taking billions of bytes of memory, that we were able to get done with less than 8 MB, easily.[/citation]

you want to understand his view better.

look at the h.264 codec
now look at core avc

that program made my p4 3ghz ht able to play a 720p 8000kbps when before it was impossible. you want to talk about bad programming look at codecs like that that are so unoptomised because they can get by on more powerful hardware.

hell look how gaming use to be before the consoles, you ever think that a game that looks as good as modern warefare 3 could run that well on that old of hardware? thats coding crap right.

you dont get people to economize until they are forced to.
 
[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]
its ok if they "failed" for a bit since they make a very very successful on sandy bridge, rather than BOOOOOOOOOOOOOULDOZER. perhaps if they feels 1 steps back from AMD they release extereme edition 1st before releasing mainstream, like they did on 900series and 800series 😀
 
[citation][nom]mstngs351[/nom]2500k is just a dual core[/citation]

It's a "true" quad core without HyperThreading. In essence, it's the i5-750 of this generation.
 
[citation][nom]ikyung[/nom]Yeah, powerful mobile chips would be nice, but if I had to choose between horsepower and power efficiency for my mobile devices, I would definitely pick power efficiency. I would love for my laptop and smartphone to last me at least 16hours of heavy use.[/citation]

when it comes to power efficiency and apu can rock and can beat intel based laptops
 
From a purely financial standpoint, Intel should be delaying their production in order to cut costs and milk as much profit as they can. If they forge ahead full steam on beating AMD to a pulp all that is going to happen is that they will make less money than they could have and there will be anti-trust investigations against them. They need to keep AMD at ~5-10% of the market. The more AMD underperforms, the more profits Intel can reap by slowing down their R&D / re-tooling costs.
 
Yeah, powerful mobile chips would be nice, but if I had to choose between horsepower and power efficiency for my mobile devices, I would definitely pick power efficiency. I would love for my laptop and smartphone to last me at least 16hours of heavy use.

LOL maybe in 2020 when we have 2nm chips and displays that use 8-16x less power you MIGHT get that
 
[citation][nom]kilo_17[/nom]Man, AMD is falling farther and farther behind Intel[/citation]
Hmm? This news is about Intel delaying their 22nm, so I really don't get your comment. They're far behind yes but this news makes them less far behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom