Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Report: Specifications of Ivy Bridge-E CPUs

Last response: in News comments
Share
April 1, 2013 6:06:42 PM

I'm too broke to keep up with tech :( 
Score
22
April 1, 2013 6:16:03 PM

Seriously intel, the X version CPUs should have been 8 core already.
Score
28
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2013 6:17:38 PM

With a 130 watt TDP, Intel will likely have to use solder under the IHS!
Score
14
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2013 6:21:49 PM

deftonianI'm too broke to keep up with tech


Aren't we all /cry
Score
17
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2013 6:30:25 PM

tomfreakSeriously intel, the X version CPUs should have been 8 core already.


Remember the claims that Ivybridge-E would have between 8-15 cores? Lies.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2013 6:32:54 PM

OMG this is useless for Sandy-E owners... C'MON AMD and steamroller, we need you!
Score
1
a c 185 à CPUs
April 1, 2013 6:43:51 PM

Where dem 8 core's at?
Score
8
April 1, 2013 6:45:14 PM

tomfreakSeriously intel, the X version CPUs should have been 8 core already.


"Sir, AMD has no serious products to put heat on us, at least for a year or two."

"Okay. Let's strangle ARM!"
Score
13
April 1, 2013 6:55:31 PM

If this is accurate, then Intel might be ditching the locked models of their higher end chips. I don't see any high end non k/x chips in the list
Score
0
April 1, 2013 7:48:53 PM

amuffinWhere dem 8 core's at?


When there's a sudden downpour of games ported from the PS4 that natively support octo-cores.
Score
-2
April 1, 2013 8:34:17 PM

I have a feeling that the enthusiast platform is going to severely lag behind the mainstream platform in single-threaded performance. I know that Ivy is already faster single-threaded compared to Sandy-E, but that's just a small amount due to a smaller manufacturing process. A new architecture is going to make the discrepancy a lot bigger. Even with all of that, at least the 4930k and 4960k make sense for some buyers. The 4820k is just going to be an odd product. This chip going to be reserved for a very small group of people that don't want to drop ~800 on a mobo/CPU combo, but still managed to exhaust the bandwidth provided by 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0 to the point where an inferior CPU architecture with more lanes will yield better performance.
Score
0
a c 117 à CPUs
April 1, 2013 8:45:13 PM

A Bad DayWhen there's a sudden downpour of games ported from the PS4 that natively support octo-cores.

Even when PS4 ports come to PC, desktop quads run at ~2.1X the PS4's CPU clock rate and should easily make up for the lack of octo cores. Ports will likely get optimized for that by folding some threaded bits back into their main threads to avoid unnecessary threading overhead for trivial code.
Score
1
April 1, 2013 8:49:31 PM

InvalidErrorEven when PS4 ports come to PC, desktop quads run at ~2.1X the PS4's CPU clock rate and should easily make up for the lack of octo cores. Ports will likely get optimized for that by folding some threaded bits back into their main threads to avoid unnecessary threading overhead for trivial code.


But that's too much work. If many ported games still only went up to DX9, what makes you think they'll put in extra effort to "fold" back in the threads?

Also, folding threads into one giant one? You should play Cities XL sometime. It's a single-threaded game first released in 2010 and so far received a 2011, 2012, and 2013 DLC, but that doesn't mean it won't try to process a metropolis's hundreds of thousands of commuters.

God that game is horrific even on an i5... A friend of mine had to disable three of his i5 2500k's cores and clocked the heck out of the one core to delay the inevitable bog-down of the traffic simulator.
Score
-2
April 1, 2013 8:51:33 PM

EDIT: And the FX processors (along with the IB-E) would greatly benefit from native octocore support. Crysis 3 is one of the newer heavily threaded games, and the FXes actually come quite close to the i5s and i7s, unlike Starcraft 2 or Skyrim where only two cores are supported.
Score
1
April 1, 2013 8:57:22 PM

anxiousinfusionRemember the claims that Ivybridge-E would have between 8-15 cores? Lies.

From what I've heard Ivy Bridge-E has 12-cores and 30MB L3, it's just a question of how many cores are fused off in the i7 versions.

Those rumored specs seem a little suspicious to me, but if they do turn out to be true then it's going to be pretty disappointing having half the cores on die disabled. I was kind of expecting Intel to increase the active core count to ~8 while maintaining similar clocks and TDP, or something along those lines.
Score
1
a c 80 à CPUs
April 1, 2013 9:02:59 PM

core i7 3820 does not have a k suffix as it's not fully unlocked like 3930k and 3960/70x. intel offering a fully unlocked quadcore for ivb e(4820k) might eat into core i7 4770k sales both are 22nm cpus but 4820k will have the advantage of supporting multiple gpus on multiple x16 slots without needing a plx chip as well as being backwards compatible with x79 mobos. i doubt intel will allow that.
Score
1
April 1, 2013 9:09:28 PM

tomfreakSeriously intel, the X version CPUs should have been 8 core already.


They should make something actually extreme and brand THAT as X series CPU. Unlocked multiplier, 8 cores, default clock at 4 GHz... etc etc.. Seriously 6 core means extreme?? LoL..
Score
2
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2013 9:42:45 PM

amuffinWhere dem 8 core's at?

when intel feels like making a 160W cpu.
Score
2
April 1, 2013 10:11:35 PM

I bet we'll have to wait at least until the XBOX 720/PS4 are released to see Intel come out with 8-core processors. Haswell probably won't have it. Broadwell-E, maybe. That's my prediction. Sad, but possibly true.
Score
1
April 1, 2013 10:29:39 PM

So this is what happens when competition lags behind too much.
Score
2
April 2, 2013 2:36:35 AM

amuffinWhere dem 8 core's at?


Waiting for a bus out of Xeonland.
Score
5
April 2, 2013 3:31:34 AM

Xeon floor scraps again.... here's hoping haswell pulls a rabbit out of the hat in the cpu department but its looking very cloudy.
Score
4
April 2, 2013 5:47:18 AM

tomfreakSeriously intel, the X version CPUs should have been 8 core already.

Right... Because of that overwhelming demand for 8 cores on the desktop. I know that Intel's stock price has been melting due to their lack of response to the marketplace.
Score
2
April 2, 2013 5:51:15 AM

Not to mention that the only OS that have multi-threading code that actually work are UNIX based, while a windows machine under load (Handbrake, MakeMKV, anything else) just craps on itself.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2013 6:28:23 AM

What a waste of time and money! They should have skipped Iyv-B and gone with Haswell! For that money, if anyone truly buys a i7-4970X, because you can get a good Xeon E5-26xx or v2, such as E5-2650 that has okey GHz and is a octacore for the same price, roughly. Or you can get two E5-2620 that are hexacores cpu with a too bit too low GHz.
Score
-1
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2013 6:46:23 AM

amuffinWhere dem 8 core's at?

There with the Xeons. Some Xeon E5 are 8 cores.
My guess is when Haswell-E arrives, the Xeon based may have all 12 cores, while the desktop version will just have 8 cores (# of cores is just a example and does not represent the actual amount when Haswell-E arrives). It seems Intel want to keep it that way, their desktop CPU cores will always be less than a Xeon.
Score
0
April 2, 2013 6:47:21 AM

Good news for me...for later in 2014. I have the i7-3930k on LGA2011...and glad they are keeping that chipset for one more round.

I bought 3930k in mid-2012, and it's great, but 4930K just looks like a memory controller boost more than anything, since WHO would run a "K" at the stock speed anyway?

Since 3930K runs very stably at 4.6ghz on O/C, 4930K will hopefully do that at 4.7Ghz, UNLESS it's temp-limited like the other Ivy bridge chips.

For a $600 dollar enthusiast chip though, I really doubt they will cheap out on the thermals.

At least I have one more round "tick" to upgrade this time, not like my old X79 series i7-920 which never did have an architecture upgrade to just "drop in"

Sandy-Bridge-E to Ivy Bridge-E upgrade...worth the money? It is if the 3930k dies, don't have to upgrade the $350 motherboard at least to replace it, since the CPU can just be swapped up for one more generation.
Score
1
April 2, 2013 7:19:07 AM

Hmm. Well, on the bright side, overclocking for all, more bandwidth, and fewer models. When and if the 4970X comes out, it'll probably turbo beyond 4 GHz.

I remember reading about DDR4 memory support on some of the Xenons.

I do hope that Haswell-E is forced via AMD to arrive in the form of a 6C/12T and 8C/16T at minimum.

Do the X-series chips come with IGPs? If they don't then i think Haswell should enable 8 cores to stay within the 130w limit they seem to be so obsessed with staying within.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2013 8:58:22 AM

Again, pretty much no progress, same as the IB release and the next Haswell release. We're going nowhere because Intel has no competition from AMD. We're going to end up with a stall for another decade like the P4 situation. Is it even going to end this time? fifteen years ago, I had a PII-300Mhz overclocked to 450MHz, and I currently have a six core 3.2GHz system. I don't want to end up having a 3.8GHz six core system 15 years from now.
Score
0
April 2, 2013 11:20:08 AM

Does Ivy Bridge-E Have more PCI lanes ? I was shocked when i used up all my 3960X lanes and needed more
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2013 12:07:17 PM

The problem is a lot of ignorant will buy them as they will fade out sandy and ivy...

just milking out the poor people who doesn't know more than to power up a computer
Score
-1
April 2, 2013 1:36:00 PM

Non-EuclideanRight... Because of that overwhelming demand for 8 cores on the desktop. I know that Intel's stock price has been melting due to their lack of response to the marketplace.

+1

also, if you clowns want to know where your 8 core chips are at, they are in the same place as the programmers that are coding for 8 cores = non-existent!

programmers coding for 4 cores are so few and far between it's not really worth making a 4 core chip for.

i remember the switch from 16 bit to 32 bit being pretty fast, but the switch to 64 bit hasn't even been fully integrated into programmers world. programmers have barely been scratching into 2 core coding.

seems programmers are demanding 6GHZ speed while all of you are running around like chickens with their heads cut off in pursuit of more cores that don't even matter!

Quote:
What we don't see is a successor to the i7-3970X;
i see it, it's now called the i7-4960 it comes with a 100mhz boost on the low end with an increased FSB of 266mhz. my guess the reason for the change was an old ATI patent on the model number or Intel didn't want to associate with an ATI model number in a belief that it would create confusion and problems (ATI 4970 vs Intel 4970)

Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2013 2:01:37 PM

well my only thoughts on this is when they do release this hopefully you can get the 3930k a little cheaper then before there's not a whole lot of improvement here nothing you cant gain with a mild overclock. currently 530 dollars for a 3930k is a bit steep been waiting for them to go on sale or to find a real discount on one .. but as of yet I have not seen anything of the sort.. hopefully my luck changes .. I have been wanting to upgrade from my 1090t but am unwilling to buy a processor at that price and really want the full lanes and platform of the lga 2011 boards.
Score
0
a c 117 à CPUs
April 2, 2013 3:07:06 PM

A Bad DayBut that's too much work. If many ported games still only went up to DX9, what makes you think they'll put in extra effort to "fold" back in the threads?Also, folding threads into one giant one?

Who said "into a giant one"?

Folding back threads does not mean going that far. To make effective use of a slow 8-core CPU, the console code will need to be finely threaded and that means delegating many trivial tasks in a way that would not be necessary on a desktop CPU. In some cases, removing the threading can be as simple as replacing the thread start function call by a straight call to the function the thread would be executing.

For physics and other libraries, reducing the level of threading can require as little as pre-processor switches or pragmas.
Score
0
a c 117 à CPUs
April 2, 2013 3:28:51 PM

dgingeriAgain, pretty much no progress, same as the IB release and the next Haswell release. We're going nowhere because Intel has no competition from AMD.

For there to be competition, there has to be some degree of reciprocity.

If you are accusing Intel of "not competing" because AMD is not giving them any reason to, you also have to blame AMD for not trying hard enough.

The reality is AMD has gone pretty much as far as their R&D budget can afford and the silicon/power/area cost per incremental performance improvement is not getting any better for Intel either, so both sides are at a relative standstill.

Sure, they could add more cores. But the amount of mainstream software out there that can make reasonably decent use of them are much too few and far between to let mainstream parts cannibalize Xeon sales to pros who really need that much processing power and have the budget to put the money where their mouths are.
Score
1
April 2, 2013 4:37:51 PM

f-14programmers have barely been scratching into 2 core coding.seems programmers are demanding 6GHZ speed while all of you are running around like chickens with their heads cut off in pursuit of more cores that don't even matter!


Because Intel did a great demonstration of what happens when you mash the accelerator and give a finger to IPC and thermals.

It's called Netburst. The architecture that was supposed to run up to 10 GHz, the 4-5 GHz version was a mini-oven.

Good luck fitting that thing in a standard desktop, nevertheless a laptop.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2013 9:16:10 AM

dgingeriAgain, pretty much no progress, same as the IB release and the next Haswell release. We're going nowhere because Intel has no competition from AMD. We're going to end up with a stall for another decade like the P4 situation. Is it even going to end this time? fifteen years ago, I had a PII-300Mhz overclocked to 450MHz, and I currently have a six core 3.2GHz system. I don't want to end up having a 3.8GHz six core system 15 years from now.


If the performance per Hx say doubles from the 3.2GHz to the 3.8GHz, hen the performance difference is still staggering. Complaining about clock frequency is nonsensical, especially since it can't keep going up without consequences in other things such as power consumption and more.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2013 9:25:40 AM

A Bad DayBecause Intel did a great demonstration of what happens when you mash the accelerator and give a finger to IPC and thermals.It's called Netburst. The architecture that was supposed to run up to 10 GHz, the 4-5 GHz version was a mini-oven. Good luck fitting that thing in a standard desktop, nevertheless a laptop.[/citation

Hitting high frequencies doesn't necessarily mean giving the finger to IPC. Look at Ivy without Intel's crappy paste, hitting 5GHz to 6GHz isn't too difficult and that's still probably capable of using less power than Netburst did despite having two to four times as many cores. If we did a more direct comparison with only one or two cores in Ivy without Intel's crap paste, then I bet around 7GHz would be reasonably possible.

Sure, they're not the supposed 10GHz of Netburst, but they're high frequencies considering that Ivy Bridge has a huge increase in performance per core.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2013 9:26:23 AM

blazorthon
A Bad DayBecause Intel did a great demonstration of what happens when you mash the accelerator and give a finger to IPC and thermals.It's called Netburst. The architecture that was supposed to run up to 10 GHz, the 4-5 GHz version was a mini-oven. Good luck fitting that thing in a standard desktop, nevertheless a laptop.[/citationHitting high frequencies doesn't necessarily mean giving the finger to IPC. Look at Ivy without Intel's crappy paste, hitting 5GHz to 6GHz isn't too difficult and that's still probably capable of using less power than Netburst did despite having two to four times as many cores. If we did a more direct comparison with only one or two cores in Ivy without Intel's crap paste, then I bet around 7GHz would be reasonably possible.Sure, they're not the supposed 10GHz of Netburst, but they're high frequencies considering that Ivy Bridge has a huge increase in performance per Hz.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2013 9:29:17 AM

One major fact that many of the members who commented here seem to ignore is that should these Ivy Bridge E CPUs have the fluxless solder instead of crap paste between the IHS and the CPU die, they can actually have a big improvement in overclocking headroom compared to Sandy Bridge E.
Score
0
!