The first issue to address popped up while I was working on my launch piece last month. Before Ivy Bridge-based processors were even showing up on shelves, we were already getting reports that Intel’s retail boxes were printed with 95 W TDPs, and not the 77 W limits the company tried claiming.
Intel responded with the following:
“Third-generation Intel quad-core standard power processors have a TDP of 77 W. In some cases, you may continue to see references to a 95 W TDP. Intel has requested that original equipment manufacturers continue to design platforms based on Intel 7-series Express chipsets to a 95 W TDP target to ensure compatibility with second-generation Intel processors.”
So, platforms continue to be designed to support 95 W Sandy Bridge-based parts, but Ivy Bridge is 77 W, right?
Technically, yes. However, Intel did seem to goof up. It should have been using a 77 W spec on its boxed processors. We received the following shortly after publishing our Core i7-3770K story:

The company seemingly used 95 W to indicate platform support, when it should have been citing the specification for the Ivy Bridge-based parts themselves. So, expect to see those five models (the -3550K should probably be -3570K) listed as 77 W parts moving forward.
Core i5-3570T: 45 W
From the bottom, Core i5-3570T is our lone 45 W sample. Intel achieves its aggressively low thermal ceiling by dropping the chip’s base clock to 2.3 GHz and only allowing Turbo Boost to kick up to 3.3 GHz on a single core when headroom allows for it. With four cores active, the chip is limited to 2.9 GHz.

Core i5-3550S: 65 W
A 65 W TDP gives the Core i5-3550S the flexibility to run at a more aggressive 3 GHz base clock rate. Turbo Boost subsequently pushes the chip up to 3.7 GHz when a single thread is active. With four cores taxing the CPU, frequency is dialed in at 3.3 GHz.

Core i5-3550: 77 W
Stepping up to the highest 77 W thermal ceiling opens up enough flexibility to operate the Core i5-3550 at 3.3 GHz. Turbo Boost facilitates an aggressive 3.7 GHz ceiling, which reflects really well in single-threaded applications. When all four of the chip’s cores are active, the -3550 runs at up to 3.5 GHz.

Core i5-3570K: 77 W
Flagship of the third-gen Core i5 family, Intel’s -3570K features a base clock rate of 3.4 GHz and a maximum Turbo Boosted frequency of 3.8 GHz. It achieves 3.6 GHz with cores active (and the available thermal headroom to not violate its TDP, of course).

- Four Ivy Bridge-Based Core i5 CPUs, Compared
- Lining Up The Contenders: Are There 95 W IVBs?
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
- Benchmark Results: SiSoft Sandra 2012
- Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5.5 And Content Creation
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: File Compression
- Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11, Integrated Vs. Entry-Level Discrete
- Benchmark Results: Real-World Games
- Power Consumption And Max. Temperature
- Efficiency
- Low-Power CPUs: Specific Applications Only
Actually a lot of sites have shown just what Chris is talking about. Even a dual core Pentium with a HD6670 beats the top end Llano piece (a quad core) even with CFX of the IGP with a HD6570. Llano is great for some things but overall in DT its only a low end entry level product and is much weaker per core and per clock than Intels CPUs.
What Chris did was pulled the same charts from his first IB review and added in the HD2500 (the new low end Intel IGP) for comparison.
If someone cannot take this information and realize that its just for comparison and that its not to show anything better, then thats their problem. If this was a Llano article, or the Trinity article when it comes out, you better believe Chris will do everything to check ever performance aspect. But its not. Its an article to see if the T and S models are worth it.
Overll, llano is overrate in my book. We have barley sold any at my work place. Just doesn't have the pulling power like a CPU and discrete GPU does.
Because this is a story about the Intel chips. To the contrary, though, the AMD-based platform is more likely to bottleneck a discrete graphics card than the Intel one. AMD's strength is in the integrated graphics right now.
Because this is a story about the Intel chips. To the contrary, though, the AMD-based platform is more likely to bottleneck a discrete graphics card than the Intel one. AMD's strength is in the integrated graphics right now.
Actually a lot of sites have shown just what Chris is talking about. Even a dual core Pentium with a HD6670 beats the top end Llano piece (a quad core) even with CFX of the IGP with a HD6570. Llano is great for some things but overall in DT its only a low end entry level product and is much weaker per core and per clock than Intels CPUs.
What Chris did was pulled the same charts from his first IB review and added in the HD2500 (the new low end Intel IGP) for comparison.
If someone cannot take this information and realize that its just for comparison and that its not to show anything better, then thats their problem. If this was a Llano article, or the Trinity article when it comes out, you better believe Chris will do everything to check ever performance aspect. But its not. Its an article to see if the T and S models are worth it.
Overll, llano is overrate in my book. We have barley sold any at my work place. Just doesn't have the pulling power like a CPU and discrete GPU does.
I'm thinking in terms of a HTPC/"Super-Console". Low power, high gaming+A/V performance, quiet, 'instant'-on.
If you guys get the time to, of course.
I must admit, with a low to mid end card, Llano wouldn't really cause any bottlenecking issues, however it wouldn't be reasonable to expect Llano to perform the same or better than SB or IB i3s and i5s using the same card for most games. SB and IV are just faster even if Llano had a higher clock, period.
In instances where he HD4000 has enough GPU power, but the HD2500 does not, the 3570k will offer a lower total system power option than either of the t/s options once you factor in adding a GPU that meets your needs.
If you jut bought a 3570k and undervoled it, which IB seems very good at, the results wouldn't even be close.
Those processors may be the only ones that you could get into your mini-ITX board. For example, Foxconn H61S mini-ITX will only accept less than 65W CPUs http://www.cpu-upgrade.com/mb-Foxconn/H61S.html
However, seeing that the 77W CPUs top power draw is practically the same as 3550S, I wonder whether they will not fit in those mini-ITX boards.
That was a teaser from the original Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up For Ivy Bridge.
What happened? Was this it?
I'm still very curious!
Thermal paste is only usefull when used to fill in air gaps between heat conductive materials so it can disipate more heat than air can. But replace metal with the paste? Look like someone tried to make more profit here by cutting down production cost. Next Bridge, please!
What I want to know, is take the i5 k series chips. Ivy starts out more efficient, but as you overclock them, due to voltage jumps on ivy - does sandy become more efficient at some point.