Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Report: Specifications of Ivy Bridge-E CPUs

By - Source: VR-Zone | B 40 comments

Some information has come to light about Intel's upcoming Ivy Bridge-E CPUs.

While we're expecting the Haswell chips to launch soon, we haven't seen Ivy Bridge-E chips hit the market yet (the current Core i7 Extreme chips on the market are based on the Sandy Bridge architecture). Before we see Haswell launch though, we are expecting the high-end Ivy Bridge-E chips to round out the generation sometime in the second half of 2013.

X-bit Labs has made a table that gives us a good overview of Intel's plans for the -E lineup of products. Looking at the numbers, we can see a clear difference between the chips. While the cache and TDP are quite similar, the clock frequencies have taken a little jump, as well as the memory controller, which jumped from supporting 1600 MHz memory to 1866 MHz memory. The performance jump appears to be minimal, and unsurprisingly so. Ivy Bridge didn't improve much on performance over Sandy Bridge. Note, though, that the specifications listed are still unofficial. What we do know is that buyers will be able to drop the chips right into existing LGA2011 motherboards.

 

Based on the numbers given we see the successor to the i7-3820K as the i7-4820K, the i7-3930K is succeeded by the i7-4930K. Similarly, the i7-3960K is bettered by the i7-4960K. What we don't see is a successor to the i7-3970X; however, we could assume that down the line Intel might introduce an i7-4970X to top everything off. This is not shown on Intel's roadmap below, though.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 40 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 28 Hide
    tomfreak , April 1, 2013 6:16 PM
    Seriously intel, the X version CPUs should have been 8 core already.
  • 22 Hide
    deftonian , April 1, 2013 6:06 PM
    I'm too broke to keep up with tech :( 
  • 17 Hide
    nforce4max , April 1, 2013 6:21 PM
    deftonianI'm too broke to keep up with tech


    Aren't we all /cry
Other Comments
  • 22 Hide
    deftonian , April 1, 2013 6:06 PM
    I'm too broke to keep up with tech :( 
  • 28 Hide
    tomfreak , April 1, 2013 6:16 PM
    Seriously intel, the X version CPUs should have been 8 core already.
  • 14 Hide
    wdmfiber , April 1, 2013 6:17 PM
    With a 130 watt TDP, Intel will likely have to use solder under the IHS!
  • 17 Hide
    nforce4max , April 1, 2013 6:21 PM
    deftonianI'm too broke to keep up with tech


    Aren't we all /cry
  • 0 Hide
    anxiousinfusion , April 1, 2013 6:30 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.
  • 1 Hide
    vmem , April 1, 2013 6:32 PM
    OMG this is useless for Sandy-E owners... C'MON AMD and steamroller, we need you!
  • 8 Hide
    amuffin , April 1, 2013 6:43 PM
    Where dem 8 core's at?
  • 13 Hide
    A Bad Day , April 1, 2013 6:45 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!"
  • 0 Hide
    dalethepcman , April 1, 2013 6:55 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
  • -2 Hide
    A Bad Day , April 1, 2013 7:48 PM
    amuffinWhere dem 8 core's at?


    When there's a sudden downpour of games ported from the PS4 that natively support octo-cores.
  • 0 Hide
    naihan , April 1, 2013 8:34 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.
  • 1 Hide
    InvalidError , April 1, 2013 8:45 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.
  • -2 Hide
    A Bad Day , April 1, 2013 8:49 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.
  • 1 Hide
    A Bad Day , April 1, 2013 8:51 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.
  • 1 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , April 1, 2013 8:57 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.
  • 1 Hide
    de5_Roy , April 1, 2013 9:02 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.
  • 2 Hide
    swordrage , April 1, 2013 9:09 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..
  • 2 Hide
    esrever , April 1, 2013 9:42 PM
    amuffinWhere dem 8 core's at?

    when intel feels like making a 160W cpu.
  • 1 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , April 1, 2013 10:11 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.
  • 2 Hide
    sublime2k , April 1, 2013 10:29 PM
    So this is what happens when competition lags behind too much.
Display more comments