Intel's Ivy Bridge vs. Sandy Bridge Benchmarks Leaked

tri-gate tech ? yeah right... marketing BS as always

If the price is the same then it'll be nice to purchase for a new build, but I dont think theres a significant increase in performance to justify an upgrade if you have a sandy bridge cpu.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't wait to get one of these chips in the future and OC!!!!!!!!!!!

Please send me an IvyBridge NOW! I need this chip! This will be the best laptop chip ever. I can finally ditch the integrated graphics which will improve battery life by 50% AND I'll get better CPU performance in the package. For desktops, it's a minimal gain 10-25% overall. For Laptop users though, this is huge. A real GPU will give us much longer battery life while not sacraficing performance needed for some of us business and engineering users.

so basically in cpu power is not a big leap... graphich wise is a little better... but well after all intel hd graphics are still shit...

I think the real benefit of Ivy Bridge is its OCing potential, while keeping low temps and power consumption.

not much attractive for gamers who already have sandybridge on chip GPU performance does't matter if you have discrete GPU

would have been nice if they compared the HD4000 to the HD3000 instead of the HD2000.

So where are the REAL benchmarks?


Where are the raw numbers? It can always be claimed that a processor is "25% faster" than the previous generation even when the truth isn't there- AMD seems to be good at this.

Almost every benchmark up there has something to do with HD4000. ProShow's probably using Quick Sync since you're creating an MPEG-2 movie file.

The only thing that remains a mystery to me is the Excel benchmark since that's the only one where HD4000 wouldn't skew the numbers. Or are there other accelerations in this CPU that Excel 2010 can use that aren't in Sandy Bridge?

So yeah, it's a new architecture, but it doesn't seem to be a must-have upgrade from an i5-2500K.

But gamers make up less than 1% of intel CPU sales. The majority of PC sales don't use discrete graphics either.

AMD is dead so Intel wants to compete against itself. haha

According to that chart, it's nearly 3x the performance, graphics wise compared to Sandy Bridge.
Sandy Bridge can do about 4K on 3dmark06, and so think of 10K on 3dmark06 with Ivybridge, pretty darn good. Better than my Asus G50VT gaming laptop. Who knows if it really is that much better but that's what the marketing shows.

If the difference isnt more than 20% I will just keep my 2600k @ 4.5. Runs everything fine now even BF3 @ 85 fps 2 x gtx 580s 2560 x 1600 res.

Nice performance increase across the board, looks like ~10-15% on average. Very nice considering it's just a node shrink of Sandy Bridge and not a new architecture. I can't quite remember how much performance per clock improved from Conroe to Penryn, or from Bloomfield to Gulftown, but the increase in IPC seems to fall in line with what you'd expect to see. Combined with the significantly lower TDP, Ivy Bridge is shaping up to be a performance per W beast.

Question is, if the Sandy bridge 2600k, for $369, is at 3.5GHz (3.9GHz turbo) at 95W, what can I expect in the 130W $350 range for Ivy Bridge?
I paid $320 CAD for my i7-920 rev D-0, which is 2.66GHz stock but I run 3.7GHz on stock voltage. I bought it about two years ago (I think). Will I have any reason to replace my rig? I have a good enough PSU I can through in any card I want, and when overclocked my CPU bulls through anything I do.
I had no reason to upgrade for Sandy Bridge. Will I have one for Ivy bridge, other than for increased amount of RAM slots? That is a tempting reason though. For the same price of a 3x2GB set when I built my system, I could buy a 6x4GB set now.

This max TDP of 77W stuff better not be true! I live in a cold country; my i7 keeps me warm at night.

except they didn't compare it to he best that sandy bridge has to offer. They compared it to HD2000.

Given these numbers include improvements to Turbo Boost (which I wouldn't use since I'd OC) its hard to tell what the real perf increase is. I'm limping along 'till Ivy Bridge (really only b/c I want PCIe 3.0 for future upgrades) but don't expect much over Sandy.

Did you even bother to click the link to the article about it? You should actually read about something before you deride it. I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe that a bunch of the highest-qualified engineers in the business came up with a new method of constructing transistors.

Where did you get that info? AMD is not dead it just want to stop compete with Intel in desktop market.

?... since when was the i7-2600K $369? It's been around $315-$320 since release.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115070



I think you may be a little confused. Ivy Bridge has a dual channel memory controller, as opposed to the triple channel on your i7-920, so you would actually have fewer DIMM slots then your current system. But this is irrelevant, as the increased efficiency in Sandy Bridge's memory controller allows it to achieve near parity with Bloomfield in terms of memory bandwidth, despite its narrower interface. And Sandy/Ivy Bridge is also capable of addressing higher density memory, up to 32GB (4x8GB) where as your current platform maxes out at 24GB (6x4GB).

Last I checked the CPU rendering benchmark in Cinebench 11.5 is highly threaded and very CPU bound, it doesn't use the GPU. And many of the benchmarks in the top chart wouldn't see much of a benefit from a more aggressive turbo boost or a faster GPU, as they're also heavily threaded and CPU bound. Looks like the second chart is meant as the GPU comparison, not the first.

And it's not a new architecture, it's Sandy Bridge with tweaks and optimizations on Intel's 22nm process.

Finally, a CPU that will convince me to ditch my old (but still capable) OC Q9550.

Put me on a 5.2ghz Ivy and I'll be set for a good while.

200% better than nothing really means nothing. lol

The 2600K is 3.4GHz, not 3.5GHz. The 2700K is 3.5Ghz.

As for the 130W TDP, I doubt any will be 130w as all of them, the 3770K included, will max out at 77w. Thats the major benefit to 22nm Tri Gates.

Now I want to see how far they can overclock on air with a 77w TDP......

While the performance may not be a huge increase as far as the CPU goes (a completely different story on the GPU side) the power reduction is really where it shines. Ivy Bridge seems to mostly be a proof of concept of Intel's new tri-gate technology.

saw these numbers before. nice improvements all across the board.
hd 4k vs hd 2k comparison is a bit unfair imo. it should have been hd 4k vs hd 3k and hd 2500 vs hd 2k. hd 4k vs hd 2k comparison is more like comparing between hd 3k with gma 4500.
amd, get your ass into gear and release some info on piledriver vs bd and trinity vs llano. i want to see how trinity's vce performs against ivb's hd 4000.

The first chart, far right, for Excel 2010, has a bubble with "faster, larger cache can bring added performance". Unless I missed something, they both have 8MB L3 cache. Is the L2 cache increased on the i7-3770, and they just failed to point that out? The link for the i7-3770 points to another article with a chart that states "total" cache at 8MB. I'm not researching beyond this... dinner's ready lol

It's certainly not a leak but part of their marketing schama.

compared to intel hd2000 not hd3000... I bet any amd apu can do better graphic wise... but again... if sandy bridge is not a big leap in cpu performance... there is a hope... that the next amd cpu will at least compete with them...

3DM Vant. P GPU
Intel HD Graphics 3000 1329
Intel HD Graphics 2500 950
Intel HD Graphics 2000 763

So based on these numbers the HD4000 would score ~2841 which would put it around a NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M or AMD Radeon HD 6680

Edit. used HD3K for math instead of HD2K... fixed

"Stay tuned as hopefully more details trickle out on what type of gaming performance can be expected with the new Ivy Bridge processors."

Cuz thats what all us nerds really care about in the end.