Ivy Bridge is Intel's current-generation design. The company's tick-tock cadence establishes a new architecture (the tick), and then follows it up with a updated manufacturing technology (the tock). That way, the next tick is implemented on a mature process, paring back some of the risk associated with transitioning to a significantly-updated architecture.
After the tick that was Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge employs a very similar design on a 22 nm process. Intel maintains its Core i3, i5, and i7 nomenclature, updating the model names to reflect a third generation. Fortunately, Ivy Bridge-based chips drop into the same LGA 1155 interface as the Sandy Bridge-based parts.
Though its x86 cores remain largely the same, Ivy Bridge does offer a more advanced graphics engine, along with a memory controller that officially supports 1,600 MT/s data rates. The unlocked parts boast maximum multipliers of 63x (up from Sandy Bridge's 57x), and the entire line-up includes 16 lanes of PCI Express 3.0 connectivity.
More information:
- Gaming At 1920x1080: AMD's Trinity Takes On Intel HD Graphics
- Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up For Ivy Bridge
Benchmarked Intel Ivy Bridge-Based CPUs:
| Ivy Bridge | Code Name | Rev. | Socket | Number of Cores | Clock Frequency | L2 Cache | L3 Cache | iGPU | Memory Controller | TDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core i5-3450 | Ivy Bridge | E1 | 1155 | 4 | 3.1 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 6 MB | HD Graphics 2500 650-1100 MHz | integrated up to DDR3-1600 | 77 W |
| Core i5-3470 | Ivy Bridge | E1 | 1155 | 4 | 3.2 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 6 MB | HD Graphics 2500 650-1100 MHz | integrated up to DDR3-1600 | 77 W |
| Core i5-3550 | Ivy Bridge | E1 | 1155 | 4 | 3.3 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 6 MB | HD Graphics 2500 650-1100 MHz | integrated up to DDR3-1600 | 77 W |
| Core i5-3570K | Ivy Bridge | E1 | 1155 | 4 | 3.4 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 6 MB | HD Graphics 4000 650-1100 MHz | integrated up to DDR3-1600 | 77 W |
| Core i7-3770K | Ivy Bridge | E1 | 1155 | 4 | 3.5 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | HD Graphics 4000 650-1100 MHz | integrated up to DDR3-1600 | 77 W |
- Tom's Hardware: CPU Benchmark Charts, Updated
- AMD: Bulldozer
- AMD: A-Series APUs (Trinity/Llano)
- AMD: K10 (Stars)
- Intel: Nehalem
- Intel: Sandy Bridge
- Intel: Ivy Bridge
- CPU Charts: AMD Processor Overview
- CPU Charts: Intel Processor Overview
- Benchmark Hardware And Software
- PCMark 7
- SiSoftware Sandra 2012
- Adobe Creative Suite 6
- Professional Applications
- Audio/Video And File Compression
- 3DMark 11 And Games
- Power Consumption
- No Surprise: Intel Takes The Performance Crown, AMD Represents Value
But i want some processors which were legendary overclockers, and representatives of their generation of CPU's, included with a nominal OC :
intel C2D E7300 : 2.66- > 3.33
Intel C2Q Q6600 : 2.4- > 3.0ghz
Intel i5-750 : 2.66 - >3.33
Its highly likely that a person has owned at least one of these CPU's. I want to know how well these compare to modern processors.
But i want some processors which were legendary overclockers, and representatives of their generation of CPU's, included with a nominal OC :
intel C2D E7300 : 2.66- > 3.33
Intel C2Q Q6600 : 2.4- > 3.0ghz
Intel i5-750 : 2.66 - >3.33
Its highly likely that a person has owned at least one of these CPU's. I want to know how well these compare to modern processors.
I always wish this. Beyond that the AM3 Athlon X2's are still being sold at newegg and the Phenom X2's are not...
Agreed, maybe just one dual core and one quad? q9550 and e6850? not that I still own both of those or anything...
But let's do some math. Just for a rough order of magnitude I figure an average of 15% increase in performance per clock cycle, per generation (not including clock speed, number of cores, etc.). So if we start back at Conroe and work our way to present day Ivy Bridge, that's 5 new generations of processors. 1.15^5 = 2.01
Which means that an Ivy Bridge CPU at the same speed as a Conroe CPU (2006ish) is about 2x as fast per clock cycle, on average. Once you take into account faster clock speeds, number of cores, cache sizes, integrated memory controllers, etc. and more importantly what software will be used with the CPUs the real world performance difference could be almost nothing to somewhere around 10-15x as fast.
I digress. The point being, is I would like to see some more benchies Tom's! Prove me wrong!
Yes! Core 2 Duo E6750 CPU owner here.
i'll skip ivy and Haswell as well with this Sensational Cpu at 4.6Ghz
There should be i3 3220 too. Really wanted to know about that.
Throw in a Pentium 4 as a reminder to those folks who still think they can run BF3 on a 1.8 GHz Willamette.
And as for fun, there should've been a CPU rendering test. Windows 7 has a function that allows a CPU do to DX10 graphics, completely bypassing the GPU. The only obviously issue that CPUs are terrible compared to GPUs when it comes to graphics.
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20081126/direct3d-warp10-to-enable-you-to-play-dx10-crysis-using-software-renderer-only-albeit-slowly/
There is no need to bench 2600K/2700K & Core i5-2300/Core i5-2310, just one of the 2 set will do, because we all know their performance is close to identical.
Sorry, didn't get to read that