Report: Intel's Ivy Bridge-E CPUs Will Launch Sept. 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shneiky

Distinguished
And two years wait for 5%-10%. And the same 6 cores.This chips already have the premium price, Intel could at least give us 2 extra cores. Guess all us video/fx/3d guys can only get more power by jumping on Xeons. Another premium on top of the premium. We need AMD to the rescue. (too bad it will not happen in the next at least 5 years)
 

bartosz trzaska

Honorable
Apr 15, 2013
17
0
10,510
0
fuuuuu U Intel i just bought 3570k like few weeks ago ,in few months with your clever tick tock tactics this cpu will be be like 2 generations old making me feel like i got antique cpu sitting in my pc :p better yet make me upgrade to new mobo because new cpus wont have whatever socket my mobo has ......
 

juan83

Distinguished
May 17, 2011
53
0
18,640
1
Some how i like Intel.. but i want more power, more cores.. at least for premium CPU show us something new like 8 cores.. not just another usd 1000, 6 cores and a poky 10% speedup. It's good news for guys like me with an old architecture, but not for somebody with a SB... it's kind of paying too much for very little...
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
Why buy only 3960X/3970X when u can buy 3930K in 10% slower, then replace the 3930K with 4930K. which 4930K will beat the crap out of even 3970X. All that with $1000.
Seriously the X version should have been 8 core @ 150w & the 4820K should have been 6 core without HT. (*save the trouble for manufacturing another diff chip)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Where are the native 6 and 8 core Haswell Cpus? Not upgrading my 2 year old 2600k with a new one with the same cores same base speed for it to only run a few degrees cooler??
 

aggroboy

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2010
197
0
18,680
0
If Intel is just spinning their wheels with this year's lineup, hopefully AMD can come up with decent Steamroller cores for us enthusiasts.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
@Neils: The roadmap says greater than or equal to the 4960X, so obviously there's going to be a 3970X.


Two years ago we had Gulftown, so this is will be a 20-30% improvement at the least.

And it's not like you've seen anything comparable from AMD (in terms of year-over-year improvements, so i think you're beating a dead horse.

The real reason they're not exceeding 6 cores is probably because of power issues and the fact that an 8-core extreme part at $1k would kill AMD's high end completely, as the fastest 6C/12T SKUs would have to be sold for $800 or less.

EDIT: Got confused with the 3970X, SB-E launched Q4, 2011. Sorry!
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
3930K is already below $800, it didnt kill AMD. So this is invalid

3970K is 3.5GHz, Ivy-bridge is on average ~10% faster than SB-E, so the 4930K should have no problem replacing both 3970X/3930K @ 3.2GHz 6C/12T + 15MB cache. There is already a SB-E Xeon 8C/16T@ 150w @ 3.1GHz. Intel should not have any problems with the smaller 22nm Ivy-E @ 8C/16T @ 150w = 3.3GHz which still faster than 3970X even @ 6 core environment. I generally feel the X version should have at least 2 extra cores to justify the huge price mark up from the 6 core K CPU.


 

Shneiky

Distinguished
ojas said:
The real reason they're not exceeding 6 cores is probably because of power issues and the fact that an 8-core extreme part at $1k would kill AMD's high end completely, as the fastest 6C/12T SKUs would have to be sold for $800 or less.
I disagree. First - at the high-end Intel is competing with Intel. Even a high end Opteron is preforming worse then Intel's enthusiast offerings when it comes to the most used software. While Opterons are great for bigger number of light threads (specially independent ones),Even though most Adobe and Autodesk software's computational parallelism will span across all cores, it benefits more from IPC ( and GHz ) increases because of the highly hierarchy dependent structure of computations. AMD has no laid foot here in the past years. What I am trying to say is that Intel $1k parts can't kill AMD because AMD does not have a remote, whats left of a direct competitor.

Second - we already have 8C/16T Xeons in the 150W envelope. Drop off all the transistors related to CPU to CPU communication and other specifically server based tasks and instructions, 2MB of L3 and it can maybe arrive in a 130W package.

Just my 50 cents, please feel free to correct me if my arguments were off.
 

arcticle

Guest
Jul 29, 2012
114
0
10,680
0
A better product for those that do not already have an Extreme class Intel CPU. This is better than nothing. It was obviously not feasible or economical to make a CPU with drastically better performance compared to the last generation's Extreme class CPUs.
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
915
1
18,990
1

Personally, I would think that it was more a matter of not having anything from AMD to compete with.
 

Shneiky

Distinguished
@arcticle
On the contrary - over saturating the market with almost the same products for years is a bad business plan as well. Intel's only saving grace is lack of competition. If i was to purchase when IV-E arrives, would definitely grab an older SB-E chip because of the reduced prices. SB-E prices will drop by more than 10%, giving it an edge in price/performance compared to IV-E. Specially when you put the same power envelope into the equation. Not to mention the risk of IV-E using thermal paste between the cores and the heat spreader is a very possible reality. If that is the case then I want to point out the OC SB vs OC IB benchmarks in which SB wins, because it needs only 200/300 MHz to match the IPC increase while the better termals allowed for 400-600 MHz bigger OC. Possibly Haswell-E ( or a suprise comeback from AMD ) will make a change.
 

VoxPopuli512

Honorable
May 4, 2013
1
0
10,510
0
What an ill idea to incorporate GPU into CPU for desktops(sic!)? The same goes to LGA vs BGA. I fully agree to do that with mobile processors but in desktops?! Nobody is using it! GPU in desktop is a waste of silicon&space - it will newer mach discrete GPUs from simple reason they cannot have enough transistors in such space.(in CPU) Intel open your eyes! Instead of GPU module add extra cores as you promised years ago! And now we already know that there are no plans for 8 core before Skylake (and it is not yet sure if Skylake will have 8core). Outrage! For Christ sake who want's to buy new generation of processors with only 7% increase over last generation! Not me for sure. Where are engineers in Intel?...definitively below marketing man. Intel open your eyes - killing desktop PC market you are cutting your own leg!!! There is still enough people who want to have powerful desktops!(instead of cloud!) And why Intel is disabeling TCX and virtualisation in overclockable K versions? I won't buy Haswell, Broadwell or anything else until I won't see extra cores in it, NO GPU(!) and the prise won't be higher than than x2.5 for x2 cores number.(i.e.: 4core=250USD then 8core=<625USD - as this is not a solution to give =>1000USD enthusiast CPU as anyone can buy Xeon in that price)
 

randomkid

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2009
2,846
0
21,160
169
I have been wanting to buy the i7-3930K but hold it off because I was turned off by the 130W TDP. Knowing the Ivy Bridge i7-3770k was down to 77W from i7-2700 of 95W, I thought similar TDP reduction will happen for the i7-4930K. But no... same TDP for small increase in performance... wasted all my time waiting...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS